The 2020 Dems -- Who Should Drop Out
.................
Rolling Stone recently published a Leaderboard of likely Democratic presidential candidates (link). I've used the same names, but reimagined it as a list of who should drop out.
I first list the half who've a bigger downside than up; then the other way round.
.................
Ranking. Name. Reason they should drop. Discussion. (Rank on R.S. leaderboard)
#29: John Kerry. His loss. His role as an elder statesman is assured; he'd make an excellent choice as Secretary of State, Defense, or even UN ambassador. But, he has Hillary’s retread baggage, and age, but without the popular vote win. (14)
#28: Bernie Sanders. His age. He’d be 80 in his first year on the job. And as much as we all may love him, it'd be asking an awful lot of Democrats to have to commit to a single term in office, or worse, face the prospect of serving till he was 87. (4)
#27: Sherrod Brown. His Senate seat. Any way you slice it, Democrats need that seat to ever have a chance at passing a progressive agenda—at least for another 4-6 years. (6)
#26: Howard Schultz. His story. Democrats are not going to want to follow the Trump model of electing a moneybags CEO who's never been elected. (24)
#25: Tom Steyer. His story. Again, rich white guy never elected to office. (13)
#24: Eric Holder. Lack of wins. Holder’s fame involved appointed, not elective, office. (17)
#23: Tulsi Gabbard. Her Syrian problem. Sorry, but dictators cannot be visited in the middle of a war without a clear, workable peace agenda that has some chance at success. (25)
#22. Eric Swalwell. His lack of experience. Democrats need a tested figure in as critical a contest as president. (26)
#21. John Delaney. Same as above. (28)
#20. Tim Ryan. Again. (23)
#19. Richard Ojeda. Ditto. (27)
#18. Pete Buttigieg. Yet again. (15)
#17. Stacey Abrams. Her future. She'd be a much stronger candidate as a sitting US senator or governor. (5)
#16. Eric Garcetti. His prominence. While being a mayor does involve executive experience, and L.A. is the bigtime, the step up to US president is all but impossible for a mere mayor. (16)
……………………
And now the half who've something to offer. I first mention their strength.
#15. Terry McAuliffe. Well-connected. A Clinton ally and money-raiser, but in an age when big money in party politics is sometimes frowned on. (22)
#14. Jeff Merkley. His mild-mannered compassion. Just think: having a calm, engaging, friendly president. But, is there ‘fire-in-the-belly’? (18)
#13. Joe Biden. His winking charm. A smile in the White House would be quite the change. But, he faces the same age-related issues as Bernie. And let’s not even discuss his previous runs for president. (2)
#12. Kirsten Gillibrand. Her fighting spirit. Only a few women candidates have the determination to win. But, her background as a public figure is mixed, and she has a tendency to act without full consultation. (9)
#11. Steve Bullock. Dem. red state winner. Plus, he’s diverse—geographically, being the governor of Montana. But, his chances are low with an electorate that'll probably want ambition in a progressive direction. He might do best by avoiding a bad loss in a contest where the odds are long. (19)
#10. Michael Bloomberg. His perceived competence. Focusing on several key issues, and sufficiently funding them, has built up a reputation for actually getting to success. But, his age and a story similar to Trump’s doesn’t bode well. (21)
#9. Beto O’Rourke. His excitement. Candidates who have a ‘wow’ factor exciting their supporters, especially young supporters, have a leg up. But, he’s young. He has great potential. Why rush? (3)
#8. Hillary Clinton: Her popular vote win in ’16. She’s experienced and has a ‘next step’ agenda, which is not the risky big ticket promises that could easily get some candidates in trouble. But, at age 71, she'd be asking Democrats to vote for someone who'd be 81 after two terms. (wild card)
#7. Jay Inslee: His focus on Climate Change and the environment. This is a winning issue as the share of concerned voters gradually increases with the drumbeat of warnings. But, he's little known and his state has twice failed to pass legislation that would've fought climate change. (20)
#6. Julian Castro: His charisma. Seeing him on Colbert recently, I added him to my short list of those who have it. And being Hispanic, with Texas possibly in play, would be all the Democrats would need to win. But, he has relatively little experience. (10)
#5: John Hickenlooper: His impressive track record. A two-term governor, and before that a successful small business owner, he has the executive experience to make a good president. (12)
#4: Elizabeth Warren: Her take on the economy. Her recipe for middle class wage growth is sophisticated and easily understood: make corporations value things other than profit. But, she’s 69, meaning she'd be in her late 70’s at the end of two terms. (8)
#3: Kamala Harris: Her odds. Many pundits rate her in the top tier of candidates for the presidency. Her youth, appeal for people of color (including Asian Americans), her experience in law enforcement, even her reported aura of Obama-deja vu, suggest she may be a winner. But, can a liberal Californian win nationwide? (1)
#2: Cory Booker: His personality. A take-charge, hustling, let’s get this done attitude, is what people like to see in their politicians. And Booker has the gushing energy that appeals to those who don’t particularly care about issues, but are drawn to likable personalities. But, is this his time? He’s young enough to wait. (11)
#1: Amy Klobuchar: Her focus. Appealing to those who don’t agree with you takes something close to trust; a sense that the candidate is a steady, calm hand that'll do most things right. Cultivating this normalcy takes careful engagement; Klobuchar is good at it. But, her’s would be a stronger candidacy if she were part of a team. (7)
That’s right. The Democrats would surely do better if they joined forces, with perhaps six candidates agreeing to serve in a successful Democratic administration, either as President / Vice President or as cabinet members. Here’s my dream team, in reverse order, and based on a reorganized government that emphasized consolidation and cost reduction:
Joe Biden: all military matters
Hillary Clinton: all foreign affairs
Jay Inslee: all interior related
Julian Castro: all benefits and services
John Hickenlooper: all business promotion
Elizabeth Warren: all economic policy
Kamala Harris: all law enforcement
Cory Booker: Vice President
Amy Klobuchar: President
There'd be six candidates contesting the nomination (all but Biden, Clinton and Inslee). If Harris won, for example, she and Klobuchar would trade places. If Castro did better than Booker, the two would trade jobs. As I've written before (here and here), this takes the animosity out of the primary battle. Plus, it puts the idea of a super-efficient government, based on spheres of influence, out for debate. And, most important, it presents a united, all-star team.
Sunday, December 23, 2018
Sunday, December 16, 2018
What If Fighting Climate Change Were Easy?
Here's One Quick, Easy-To-Understand Example
.......................
An article in Mother Jones, coupled with a comment on that article:
1. An Ohio farmer never tills his fields, always grows cover crops, uses less pesticides, has healthier soil, much less runoff, and returns carbon to the ground.
2. A comment from that article asks why federal assistance to farmers doesn't involve help in converting to this no-till, cover crop method as a pre-condition.
3. If all farms were so converted, each year would see 100 million metric tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere, according to an Ohio State professor quoted in the article.
4. That's about 2% of all fuel-burning emissions; a good start to cutting carbon, good for so many other reasons, and an example of a simple switchover that would only take a decade or so to implement. Plus, such a changeover would be sucking 100 million metric tons of carbon out of the air every year, even when we eventually produce much less--meaning the percentage would then be much greater than 2%.
Here are the comments I mentioned. The first quotes and comments on someone who is using our cover crop system during a drought. The second is a reaction to the first.
...................
Handypants2
"...his yields were near the normal season average while other farmers saw yields drop 50 percent—or lost their crop entirely."
That has to be a major consideration and makes it all worth it.
DavidD --> Handypants2
I can see aspects of federal crop insurance hindering these methods if you are willing to mine the soil for a quick return and have Uncle Sugar pick up the tab if your gamble fails.
If the Feds said no crop insurance unless you adopt these methods then I think you would be right,it would be a major consideration and make it all work.
.....................
Note: the Mother Jones article I reference originally appeared in 2013, and was republished this week. It's age is betrayed by the use of the term "one weird trick", which I now realize I no longer see on the internet.
.......................
An article in Mother Jones, coupled with a comment on that article:
1. An Ohio farmer never tills his fields, always grows cover crops, uses less pesticides, has healthier soil, much less runoff, and returns carbon to the ground.
2. A comment from that article asks why federal assistance to farmers doesn't involve help in converting to this no-till, cover crop method as a pre-condition.
3. If all farms were so converted, each year would see 100 million metric tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere, according to an Ohio State professor quoted in the article.
4. That's about 2% of all fuel-burning emissions; a good start to cutting carbon, good for so many other reasons, and an example of a simple switchover that would only take a decade or so to implement. Plus, such a changeover would be sucking 100 million metric tons of carbon out of the air every year, even when we eventually produce much less--meaning the percentage would then be much greater than 2%.
Here are the comments I mentioned. The first quotes and comments on someone who is using our cover crop system during a drought. The second is a reaction to the first.
...................
Handypants2
"...his yields were near the normal season average while other farmers saw yields drop 50 percent—or lost their crop entirely."
That has to be a major consideration and makes it all worth it.
DavidD --> Handypants2
I can see aspects of federal crop insurance hindering these methods if you are willing to mine the soil for a quick return and have Uncle Sugar pick up the tab if your gamble fails.
If the Feds said no crop insurance unless you adopt these methods then I think you would be right,it would be a major consideration and make it all work.
.....................
Note: the Mother Jones article I reference originally appeared in 2013, and was republished this week. It's age is betrayed by the use of the term "one weird trick", which I now realize I no longer see on the internet.
Hiding In Plain Sight
Who Really Knows How To Fix Our Economy?
..............................
1. This article in Vox suggests that support is growing for a return to FDR's constraints on corporations.
2. Changing how corporations are run would mean they'd pay higher wages to employees, support greener policies, and cut back on greedy behavior in general.
3. Middle-class families would have more income, while the super-rich would take a hit.
4. In short, our country would begin to heal.
5. The possible presidential candidate behind this legislation is hoping to return Capitalism to a fairer footing, rather than upend it in favor of something else.
And who is the force behind what may be our best path forward? Senator Elizabeth Warren.
* The recent down-grading of her candidacy by various news organizations may involve the super-rich realizing what she is advocating, and starting a 'whisper' campaign against her.
* An ongoing kerfuffle over our president calling Warren "Pocahontas" caused her to release a DNA study that showed she did, in fact, have Native American ancestry. This happened just before she stood for election--a reasonable transparency that brought out the nay-sayers. Read the revealing details here (nay-sayers) and here (fact-checker with relevant revelation)--in short, she almost certainly has Native American ancestry (probably a grandparent's mother or grandmother), and no, she didn't try to use that fact to advance her interests.
* I haven't yet seen her in a 'live' setting (TV), so will withhold judgement beyond acknowledging her being right on this primary issue.
...........
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones has a question: "Why Not Just Powerful Unions Instead?" And here is a comment found in response to that post that sums up the best answer:
"wetzel
Unions are a wedge that divides the middle class. The problem isn't between 'workers' and 'management'. The problem is between the priority of stockholders and everybody in society, workers and management included. The goal is to create a form of corporate personhood where a broader perspective on the costs and benefits of decision-making is required by the charter. I think a less antagonistic relationship between workers and management regarding unionization would be a natural corollary."
..............................
1. This article in Vox suggests that support is growing for a return to FDR's constraints on corporations.
2. Changing how corporations are run would mean they'd pay higher wages to employees, support greener policies, and cut back on greedy behavior in general.
3. Middle-class families would have more income, while the super-rich would take a hit.
4. In short, our country would begin to heal.
5. The possible presidential candidate behind this legislation is hoping to return Capitalism to a fairer footing, rather than upend it in favor of something else.
And who is the force behind what may be our best path forward? Senator Elizabeth Warren.
* The recent down-grading of her candidacy by various news organizations may involve the super-rich realizing what she is advocating, and starting a 'whisper' campaign against her.
* An ongoing kerfuffle over our president calling Warren "Pocahontas" caused her to release a DNA study that showed she did, in fact, have Native American ancestry. This happened just before she stood for election--a reasonable transparency that brought out the nay-sayers. Read the revealing details here (nay-sayers) and here (fact-checker with relevant revelation)--in short, she almost certainly has Native American ancestry (probably a grandparent's mother or grandmother), and no, she didn't try to use that fact to advance her interests.
* I haven't yet seen her in a 'live' setting (TV), so will withhold judgement beyond acknowledging her being right on this primary issue.
...........
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones has a question: "Why Not Just Powerful Unions Instead?" And here is a comment found in response to that post that sums up the best answer:
"wetzel
Unions are a wedge that divides the middle class. The problem isn't between 'workers' and 'management'. The problem is between the priority of stockholders and everybody in society, workers and management included. The goal is to create a form of corporate personhood where a broader perspective on the costs and benefits of decision-making is required by the charter. I think a less antagonistic relationship between workers and management regarding unionization would be a natural corollary."
Sunday, December 9, 2018
Saw Bernie On Colbert
A Few Notes
....................
1. He seemed rushed, at first. But his style is crisp, cut-and-dried, just-a-spoonful, so maybe that accounts for it.
2. I liked that he emphasized an objective view of who'd make the best Democratic candidate. Hearing the cheers and encouragement from those around one will naturally make for an easy subjective case.
3. If a booming voice and unpolished, gnarly presentation is the key, he's got it.
4. Arriving on stage, he proceeded to sit in his chair as the band finished playing. A good sign, if a bit stiff.
5. His last words, I believe, involved jokingly inviting Colbert to be his Veep. This is an example of the "unpolished, gnarly..." letting go that likely appeals to most viewers. A more careful candidate probably wouldn't joke about such a momentous matter, since it might confuse some (Did he promise to say that in order to be invited?)
6. Is his age a factor? He appeared energetic, and though his delivery was a bit rehearsed--rather than conversational (a contrast with the 'in-the-moment' style that is Colbert), I thought I detected vim and vigor.
7. People I remember him name-checking (in response to a question about O'Rourke): Beto, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker. So, if he's seriously thinking about running, this may be a signal RE: his most likely opponents in the Democratic primaries. Or, possible running mates.
8. I don't think he'll be the Democrat's nominee, though I don't really care. At 77, he'd conceivably be running for re-election at 83 in 2024. Having to argue about an 87-year-old as president is too much of an ask, frankly. And the handicap of not running again in 2024 would also seem too much for his party. But, sometimes, the exception to the rule makes for an unexpected plus: Maybe most people's reaction was "He's old, but soon we'll all be; we love him!"
....................
1. He seemed rushed, at first. But his style is crisp, cut-and-dried, just-a-spoonful, so maybe that accounts for it.
2. I liked that he emphasized an objective view of who'd make the best Democratic candidate. Hearing the cheers and encouragement from those around one will naturally make for an easy subjective case.
3. If a booming voice and unpolished, gnarly presentation is the key, he's got it.
4. Arriving on stage, he proceeded to sit in his chair as the band finished playing. A good sign, if a bit stiff.
5. His last words, I believe, involved jokingly inviting Colbert to be his Veep. This is an example of the "unpolished, gnarly..." letting go that likely appeals to most viewers. A more careful candidate probably wouldn't joke about such a momentous matter, since it might confuse some (Did he promise to say that in order to be invited?)
6. Is his age a factor? He appeared energetic, and though his delivery was a bit rehearsed--rather than conversational (a contrast with the 'in-the-moment' style that is Colbert), I thought I detected vim and vigor.
7. People I remember him name-checking (in response to a question about O'Rourke): Beto, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker. So, if he's seriously thinking about running, this may be a signal RE: his most likely opponents in the Democratic primaries. Or, possible running mates.
8. I don't think he'll be the Democrat's nominee, though I don't really care. At 77, he'd conceivably be running for re-election at 83 in 2024. Having to argue about an 87-year-old as president is too much of an ask, frankly. And the handicap of not running again in 2024 would also seem too much for his party. But, sometimes, the exception to the rule makes for an unexpected plus: Maybe most people's reaction was "He's old, but soon we'll all be; we love him!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)