#223: If I Advised Biden
.....................
There's a reckoning due later this year: Does Joe Biden go out on a high note; or is he remembered as a minor character who didn't know when to quit?
Here's the sad sack scenario:
* currently, about one out of every three Democratic voters back him
* many are older, low-information, name-recognition supporters
* come this year's debates, voters will see and like the other candidates
* for many years, Biden was known for his gaffes; debates bring them out
* because his focus will be 'big picture', he'll have nothing new to offer
* 76-year-old minds can be relatively slow, especially when picked on
* he'll likely lose support after each debate, ending the year halfway to done
Here's the winking wizard scenario:
* when choosing wisely, near-77-year-old minds are miraculous
* with his lead in the polls, Biden--like George Washington--could step away
* he alone has the pull to form an all-star team to back the eventual nominee:
* say, Hillary at State, Harris at Justice, Castro at Homeland Security,
* Inslee > EPA, Warren > Treasury, Beto > Energy, Buttigieg > UN, Hickenlooper > SBA,
* Jerry Brown Interior, Abrams HHS, Klobuchar Ag, Booker HUD, and Biden Defense
* all candidates would likely agree to the deal, if unveiled soon
* an all-star Team Democrat would be near unbeatable
Why would the other candidates agree? A team is a powerful force. For the unlikeliest candidates, being a team member removes the dread of losing. For the likelier candidates, the apparent front-runner is suddenly out of the way; which is why the-sooner-the-better for Biden, before he loses altitude. Bernie--and Trump--would then be left as the odd-men-out, being well into their 70s.
Who becomes the nominee? The nine candidates currently running, besides Biden, would continue doing so, along with the also-rans. The winner would be the nominee, and her or his place in the All Star line-up would be taken by someone else. The same goes for Veep, if chosen from among the above.
Why appoint a cabinet prior to the election? Because a team approach means less infighting, a much more competent image, star power, and communities whose candidates don't 'lose', but transition to a new phase. Each cabinet post's assignee would simply be offered the job before other contenders are considered--assuming Team Democrat wins.
Is Biden capable of a selfless exit from the stage? Power is hard to turn down, even when the writing's on the wall, as it is for a man who'll be 78 on Inauguration Day. But Biden may welcome the team leader role. For one thing, it means he can be sure he won't lose.
Is selflessness possible in the age of Trump. Stepping aside could possibly be the signature move that truly inspires voters: this is how good politicians act; like Washington. Biden, in one fell swoop, invoking the best interests of his country, would redeem her honor, and point the way out of crisis and disfunction.
This could all happen at the first debate, this summer on June 26th. Biden could announce his team, live, having hinted at and promoted his announcement in the days leading up to it. Baseball's impending All Star game would provide a likely metaphor, especially since nearly half the current government is without a guiding cabinet secretary.
Audience numbers and impact would be immense.
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
Monday, May 20, 2019
The Sweetness -- 2020 Dems' Best Case Scenario
#222: What If ... Redemption
................
1. Because of as yet unknown factors (Congress censors president, economy stumbles, tariffs bite) the Republican party is marginally less popular in November 2020 than it is now, so that all the lucky breaks go Blue's way.
2. Both Bernie and Biden have faded, as age caught up with them (78, 79 on Inauguration Day); and in their place are the four candidates with the most endorsements: Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, and Warren.
3. Because the Dems' liberal wing is chock full of candidates (Harris, Warren, etc.), and those in the House--and those with even less experience--are seen as too untested, Klobuchar takes the center-left slot, picks another center-leftie, Booker, for veep, and wins.
4. Come the day after, her heartland manner is seen to have affected the many Red state Senate seats, increasing the Blue candidate's polling percentage by +5 points over Red (in the list below, Red is represented by our current president's May '19 popularity rating--that is the difference between Trump's rating and a particular state's political lean. Bold type = seat won by opponent:
Example: In Montana, Trump's positive/negative is -15, while the state is +18 Red, so 18-15 = +3 Red. With the Heartland Manner bonus, the result swings from +3 Red to +2 Blue.
Wyoming +28 (Red senator retiring = -3 points): red won by 20
West Virginia +20: red won by 15
Texas +3: blue won by 2
Tennessee +18 (red retiring = -3 points): red won by 10
South Carolina +10: red won by 5
South Dakota +10: red won by 5
Oklahoma +11: red won by 6
North Carolina -2: blue won by 7
Nebraska +4: blue won by 1
Montana +3: blue won by 2
Mississippi +19: red won by 14
Maine -15: blue won by 20
Louisiana +20: red won by 15
Kentucky +16: (red unpopular = -10) red won by 1
Kansas +2: (red retiring = -3) blue won by 6
Iowa -8: blue won by 13
Idaho +17: red won by 12
Georgia +3: blue won by 2
Colorado -13: blue won by 18
Arizona -7: blue won by 12
Arkansas +9: red won by 4
Alaska +1: blue won by 4
Alabama +27: red won by 22
That's 11 new Democrats, and 1 new Republican = a net 10 for Blue. Of course Maine, Colorado and Iowa aren't likely to be as overwhelmingly Blue. But Red's wins in Kentucky (1 point), Arkansas (4 points) and South Dakota (5 points) could be swept up in the bargain if everything breaks for Blue. And it goes without saying that candidate quality would account for ± 10 points.
Without Klobuchar's +5 bonus (if a standard East Coast liberal were the nominee), Blue barely loses Texas, Nebraska, Montana, Kansas, Georgia, and Alaska, with North Carolina teetering. So, instead of a net +10, it would be a 'safe' net +3, just barely reaching 50/50, with any one 'moderate' stalling progress.
The reason why Klobuchar is given a +5 'heartland' bonus is that she has honed her appeal to down-home, farm country throughout her Senate career, winning many Minnesota county that are red; so, unlike many others in the field, she speaks the language. If she amplifies her own populist message by accepting campaign help from Sherrod Brown, John Hickenlooper, Steve Bullock, and Elizabeth Warren, she'd be well on her way (here is background on the full-throated populist pitch). She could then hint at nominating Kamala Harris for Justice, Pete Buttigieg for UN Ambassador, Julian Castro for Homeland Security, Jay Inslee for EPA, Beto for Energy, Hickenlooper at SBA, Joe Biden for Defense, and Hillary Clinton at State.
................
1. Because of as yet unknown factors (Congress censors president, economy stumbles, tariffs bite) the Republican party is marginally less popular in November 2020 than it is now, so that all the lucky breaks go Blue's way.
2. Both Bernie and Biden have faded, as age caught up with them (78, 79 on Inauguration Day); and in their place are the four candidates with the most endorsements: Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, and Warren.
3. Because the Dems' liberal wing is chock full of candidates (Harris, Warren, etc.), and those in the House--and those with even less experience--are seen as too untested, Klobuchar takes the center-left slot, picks another center-leftie, Booker, for veep, and wins.
4. Come the day after, her heartland manner is seen to have affected the many Red state Senate seats, increasing the Blue candidate's polling percentage by +5 points over Red (in the list below, Red is represented by our current president's May '19 popularity rating--that is the difference between Trump's rating and a particular state's political lean. Bold type = seat won by opponent:
Example: In Montana, Trump's positive/negative is -15, while the state is +18 Red, so 18-15 = +3 Red. With the Heartland Manner bonus, the result swings from +3 Red to +2 Blue.
Wyoming +28 (Red senator retiring = -3 points): red won by 20
West Virginia +20: red won by 15
Texas +3: blue won by 2
Tennessee +18 (red retiring = -3 points): red won by 10
South Carolina +10: red won by 5
South Dakota +10: red won by 5
Oklahoma +11: red won by 6
North Carolina -2: blue won by 7
Nebraska +4: blue won by 1
Montana +3: blue won by 2
Mississippi +19: red won by 14
Maine -15: blue won by 20
Louisiana +20: red won by 15
Kentucky +16: (red unpopular = -10) red won by 1
Kansas +2: (red retiring = -3) blue won by 6
Iowa -8: blue won by 13
Idaho +17: red won by 12
Georgia +3: blue won by 2
Colorado -13: blue won by 18
Arizona -7: blue won by 12
Arkansas +9: red won by 4
Alaska +1: blue won by 4
Alabama +27: red won by 22
That's 11 new Democrats, and 1 new Republican = a net 10 for Blue. Of course Maine, Colorado and Iowa aren't likely to be as overwhelmingly Blue. But Red's wins in Kentucky (1 point), Arkansas (4 points) and South Dakota (5 points) could be swept up in the bargain if everything breaks for Blue. And it goes without saying that candidate quality would account for ± 10 points.
Without Klobuchar's +5 bonus (if a standard East Coast liberal were the nominee), Blue barely loses Texas, Nebraska, Montana, Kansas, Georgia, and Alaska, with North Carolina teetering. So, instead of a net +10, it would be a 'safe' net +3, just barely reaching 50/50, with any one 'moderate' stalling progress.
The reason why Klobuchar is given a +5 'heartland' bonus is that she has honed her appeal to down-home, farm country throughout her Senate career, winning many Minnesota county that are red; so, unlike many others in the field, she speaks the language. If she amplifies her own populist message by accepting campaign help from Sherrod Brown, John Hickenlooper, Steve Bullock, and Elizabeth Warren, she'd be well on her way (here is background on the full-throated populist pitch). She could then hint at nominating Kamala Harris for Justice, Pete Buttigieg for UN Ambassador, Julian Castro for Homeland Security, Jay Inslee for EPA, Beto for Energy, Hickenlooper at SBA, Joe Biden for Defense, and Hillary Clinton at State.
Monday, May 13, 2019
Senator Amy Klobuchar Opens Up
#221: I Review Her Fox News Town Hall
................................
On May 8th, Amy Klobuchar had a big break: a whole 60-minute, prime-time appearance. Did she take advantage? I'll list a few quick points that occurred to me as I watched (as I've said before, I think she's probably the Democrat's best bet).
1. Inclusive but firm.
2. Didn't pounce on female host's gaffe ("the buckeye state", instead of the badger state); this was smart, since antagonizing your host is for dumbbells--usually male candidates looking to 'score'.
3. Didn't flinch from hard truths (her abortion rights position), but described them in a calming, non-threatening voice (example: contraception means fewer abortions).
4. Happy; she even smiled through the Kavanaugh discussion. It's hard to incite fear of a pleasant woman who's in a groove.
5. Didn't stumble once. Her delivery was graceful, even cracking jokes in the moment (host's fear of a filibustering senator).
6. Fluent in local-speak: referencing mother's Milwaukee upbringing, football rivalry joke, deplorable ag sector suicides.
7. Had a few whispers for herself, which emphasized her clear enunciation and nuanced volume dial.
8. I was not expecting the cheering spectators, the rousing campaign clips shown at start, and the hosts being perfectly respectful--though pinched, compared to Klobuchar's hearty, smiling virtuosity.
................................
On May 8th, Amy Klobuchar had a big break: a whole 60-minute, prime-time appearance. Did she take advantage? I'll list a few quick points that occurred to me as I watched (as I've said before, I think she's probably the Democrat's best bet).
1. Inclusive but firm.
2. Didn't pounce on female host's gaffe ("the buckeye state", instead of the badger state); this was smart, since antagonizing your host is for dumbbells--usually male candidates looking to 'score'.
3. Didn't flinch from hard truths (her abortion rights position), but described them in a calming, non-threatening voice (example: contraception means fewer abortions).
4. Happy; she even smiled through the Kavanaugh discussion. It's hard to incite fear of a pleasant woman who's in a groove.
5. Didn't stumble once. Her delivery was graceful, even cracking jokes in the moment (host's fear of a filibustering senator).
6. Fluent in local-speak: referencing mother's Milwaukee upbringing, football rivalry joke, deplorable ag sector suicides.
7. Had a few whispers for herself, which emphasized her clear enunciation and nuanced volume dial.
8. I was not expecting the cheering spectators, the rousing campaign clips shown at start, and the hosts being perfectly respectful--though pinched, compared to Klobuchar's hearty, smiling virtuosity.
Friday, May 10, 2019
Top 20 Issues For 2020
#220: Ranking: Worst, Meh, Better, Best
................
The Democratic presidential primary field is crowded, and issue proposals are getting lost in the shuffle. Let's list and discuss them here, in descending order, from least helpful for Dems, to sure winners. Remember, they may all be good ideas, but will the average voter in Oshkosh, Wisconsin agree?
Harmful
20. Legalized Sex Work. Practically speaking, this may be smart policy, especially if one examines the evidence in countries that have experimented with alternatives. But for the average voter this is poison: the vast majority of socially conservatives, plus those sympathetic to feminism, see this and shudder uncontrollably. Kamala Harris walked back an off-the-cuff, ill-advised comment.
19. Voting Rights For Incarcerated Felons. In practical terms, recidivism can be curtailed if we include law-breakers in social normalization. But for the average voter this is the kind of bleeding heart liberalism they know they don't like. Bernie Sanders has stuck with his support for the long view, and his recent downturn in the polls can possibly be partly to blame.
18. Reparations. The reason the reparations issue has garnered support from the likes of Julian Castro and Elizabeth Warren is that unlike the above two ideas, it would have a relatively large and inspired constituency behind it (Warren has--rightly--included Native Americans). Though the idea has an obvious logic to it (check out average incomes for Blacks and Whites, for a start), there's almost certainly a net loss of votes at stake.
No-Gain
17. Foreign Affairs. This is perhaps the most surprising item on our list. What's wrong with talking about the failures of the current president, like North Korea and Iran? Because all candidates (except possibly Joe Biden) will seem like newcomers on the stage. Perhaps for this reason, there's been very little policy proposed in this area. That's just as well, as nearly every foreign policy concern can be reduced to a simplistic, conservative fear of otherness. And in a world where terrorism threatens, fear is a potent weapon.
16. Immigration. We're beginning to move away from topics that are sure losers. Immigration itself would be much lower on our list, but in our time, immigration means our current president's obsession with undocumented immigration, including asylum seekers. For places like Wisconsin, focusing on immigration is likely a toss-up, in terms of gaining votes. There's shocking mistreatment of desperate families, the historical blessings of past immigration, the sympathy-inducing human stories. But, on the other hand, there's the simplistic us/them construct, the illegality element, and the inevitability of migration pressures increasing (population growth, climate chaos) that together will almost certainly be used to fan the flames of fear and anger. Nevertheless, most candidates have been sympathetic to the arguments for displaying a greater humanity, especially Julian Castro and Beto O'Rourke.
15. Reproductive Rights. At first glance, we can say that a majority of voters support abortion rights. And the argument that furthering contraception access will in turn limit abortion is obvious, and a good way to frame the issue. But aside from the tone of argument, there's not much room for gaining votes, especially in mixed liberal / conservative areas of the country like Wisconsin. All major candidates are supportive, though Kirsten Gillibrand has suggested abortion would be a litmus test for her if she were to appoint Supreme Court justices.
14. Gun Control. Unlike previous elections, there's now a near-consensus that something needs to be done, with young voters pressing the issue. Unfortunately, due to the political imbalances inherent in our system, places like Wisconsin and Iowa are likely tipping points in the election, and gun control, outside of urban areas, is a neutral issue at best, with equally numerous supporters on each side. A state-by-state live-and-let-live approach to the issue is probably the most likely. Cory Booker has a comprehensive policy proposal. Would it sell in Wisconsin, outside Milwaukee?
Upside
13. Drug Policy. The momentum to overturn harsh drug sentencing, free non-violent drug offenders, and allow states to follow different paths on drug enforcement is gathering steam. Treating opioid addiction, for example, as a disease instead of a punishable offense is also trending. These are welcome reversals of outdated, bad policy, but will they garner votes, compared to the inevitable stirring of fear on the other side? A particularly attractive approach to remediation is Amy Klobuchar's bi-partisan clemency board plan that would see non-violent offenders released from federal detention, thanks to a president's say-so after a speedy one-step screening process.
12. Addressing Income Inequality. Perhaps the most exciting idea out there is Cory Booker's Baby Bonds: set aside nest eggs for each child born into poverty (a poverty gradient is used to allocate less to those born into somewhat better off households). This would allow Americans to honestly believe that ours is the land of opportunity. There are numerous other permutations, including Kamala Harris' housing assistance. Booker's, though, has an endearing quality (we all love innocent babies). Though it could be close, Baby Bonds are probably a net vote winner, especially if the cost is modest enough.
11. Trade. Sending the ag economy into a tailspin, as our current president has done, is probably the worst own-goal one can imagine, since states like Iowa and Wisconsin are on the line. But there are good arguments on both sides. Many populist candidates, including those from the Rust Belt, denounce NAFTA, China, and the outsourcing of jobs. On the other side are those who understand that trade has boosted economies, especially in coastal, export-dependent states. Campaigning against harmful tariffs would seem logical, until one realizes that trade is yet another us/them issue easily demagogued by desperate politicians reliant on the fear factor. Sherrod Brown, a candidate who has since dropped out, was an ardent proponent of the anti-trade position.
10. Universal Basic Income. UBI is the idea that everyone gets, say $1,000 a year. On the campaign trail UBI has been associated with Andrew Yang. UBI gets everyone's instinctive "Hey, $$$$ for me!" vote, before we think twice: Where's the money coming from? And how much would a UBI cost? It's easy to figure out: 327 million x $1,000 = 327 billion (Yang advocates twelve times that). That's when the instinctive vote becomes a 'Gee that's expensive; sure nice, but unaffordable.' Of course, if not everyone gets the $1,000, and it accumulates into a nest egg over time, it's then more affordable, and we have #12 (above).
9. Increasing the EITC. The Earned Income Tax Credit is an excellent way to combine politics with income assistance. Those who work are generally deemed worthy, while those unwilling to work are harder to assist, simply because there's resistance to aiding anyone who isn't at least appearing to try to make a living. So, the EITC usually wins out...when funding is available.
8. Higher Teacher Salaries. Kamala Harris recently proposed toping off teacher salaries (a $3 Fed match for every $1 state dollar) to make up for the difference between what teachers earn and what similar professionals are paid. Because teachers are active politically, unionized, and often cherished, this could be smart policy, even if the chance of enactment is minimal.
7. $15-an-Hour Minimum Wage. Nearly every major candidate supports $15 an hour--a benchmark that several states have enacted using varying timetables. If pegged to inflation, the minimum wage would of course be much higher than it is now.
6. Infrastructure. Construction means something sweet for nearly everyone. Unions, private contractors, and suppliers see dollar signs. Most voters see improved facilities and an easier life. Include building retrofits, energy system upgrades, public transportation overhauls, etc., and we're half-way to a Green New Deal.
5. College Financing. Most college financial assistance plans belong in the 'No-Gain' category, as so few benefit, and if you're heading to college, you're likely to be well enough off. But, crafted intelligently, a college financing plan can appeal to a large enough voter segment to constitute a large net gain, vote-wise. I have in mind Amy Klobuchar's Free Community College plan, something that several states and localities have experimented with. The reason it 'wins': the middle class (literally, the middle achievers in a high school graduating class) would be most likely to benefit. Most upper class students (and the poor who've done well academically) either don't need the government's help, win scholarships (including Pell Grants), or are otherwise on their way to a 4-year institution.
Winners
4. Voting Rights. Voting for our favorite candidate is something we take for granted, so ensuring that we all can vote, and safeguarding the practice itself is relatively hum-drum. Then comes vote-by-mail; not only is it so much more convenient (one picks and chooses the time to fill out and send in one's ballot, rather than having to wait in line for who knows how long), but it's free (no postage required) and is already the norm in some states (Oregon, Colorado). Ranked Choice voting (used in Maine), statehood for Washington D.C. / Puerto Rico, paper ballots (to allow recounts), cyber-security, and federal oversight of minority empowerment are all issues that are important, and have their own constituencies (for example, third party voters love Ranked Choice, and approximately 1 million Puerto Rican-Americans live in Florida). Most candidates are behind a recent House bill promoting these matters.
3. Busting Up Monopolies. This is key to a seeming impossibility: locking up states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, plus putting Iowa, Ohio, and North Carolina in play. The common link here is agriculture. Rather than focus on just trade (Trump's tariffs), highlighting the corporate monopolies that exist in the farm sector can be a killer issue. As Amy Klobuchar noted in her recent town hall on Fox, there's an epidemic of farmer suicides, due mainly to families being squeezed from both sellers of input, and buyers of output. When a farmer can't choose between competitors, there's no hope. This was the genesis of American Populism, back in the 19th century, and there is no better metaphor for describing why monopolies are destructive than farmers killing themselves. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, John Hickenlooper, and other populists have been outspoken on this issue.
2. Climate Change. Young people tend to vote Democratic, if they vote. Generating hope and enthusiasm is key, and fighting Climate Change is probably the best way forward. It pits youthful vigor against the stale, head-in-the-sand denialism of old, greedy bumblers. All 2020 candidates have supported one strategy or another, with Jay Inslee having the most detailed, informed plan, and Beto O'Rourke offering his version. Advice: to avoid fear-mongering, forget about a carbon tax, for now, and instead advocate world-wide, country-by-country reductions in defense spending to pay for needed initiatives. This also avoids the inevitable complaint that other countries won't be doing their fair share.
1. Health Care. Republicans have made such an obvious mess of health care policy that one has to shake one's head in awe at their stupidity. With such an easy case to make, Dems have only one potential problem: if the conversation somehow changes from pre-existing conditions (the horror stories are endless) to the forced end of private insurance--given Medicare-For-All (tens of millions would then be susceptible to fear mongering). As everyone knows by now, Bernie Sanders has been a big advocate of Medicare For All, and many other candidates have signed on, with several back-tracking recently. The case for incremental, non-threatening change, building on ObamaCare, with an added Public Option (buy-in to Medicaid or Medicare for those who want it) is overwhelming. By the end of the year, expect nearly all remaining candidates (exception for Bernie and Co.) to accept the winning hand that the fickle finger of fate has dealt them.
....................
Update: 5/14/19:
I've been reminded that this list misses one big issue sure to factor in 2020:
Trump Corruption -- I grow weary just contemplating the myriad wrong-headedness. Take just one example: Putting former corporate insiders in charge of our government's oversight of their former colleagues. It's laughably ridiculous, ...until one realizes how utterly serious the situation has become. Infants are in danger from a toxic chemical? Bring in an industry insider who quashes any regulation that might protect children. If that isn't enough evidence of unworthiness, I don't know what is.
Update: 5/18/19:
Recent news of Red state over-reach on abortion (no exceptions, timelines that are absurd) likely moves #15 up a half-dozen or so notches.
................
The Democratic presidential primary field is crowded, and issue proposals are getting lost in the shuffle. Let's list and discuss them here, in descending order, from least helpful for Dems, to sure winners. Remember, they may all be good ideas, but will the average voter in Oshkosh, Wisconsin agree?
Harmful
20. Legalized Sex Work. Practically speaking, this may be smart policy, especially if one examines the evidence in countries that have experimented with alternatives. But for the average voter this is poison: the vast majority of socially conservatives, plus those sympathetic to feminism, see this and shudder uncontrollably. Kamala Harris walked back an off-the-cuff, ill-advised comment.
19. Voting Rights For Incarcerated Felons. In practical terms, recidivism can be curtailed if we include law-breakers in social normalization. But for the average voter this is the kind of bleeding heart liberalism they know they don't like. Bernie Sanders has stuck with his support for the long view, and his recent downturn in the polls can possibly be partly to blame.
18. Reparations. The reason the reparations issue has garnered support from the likes of Julian Castro and Elizabeth Warren is that unlike the above two ideas, it would have a relatively large and inspired constituency behind it (Warren has--rightly--included Native Americans). Though the idea has an obvious logic to it (check out average incomes for Blacks and Whites, for a start), there's almost certainly a net loss of votes at stake.
No-Gain
17. Foreign Affairs. This is perhaps the most surprising item on our list. What's wrong with talking about the failures of the current president, like North Korea and Iran? Because all candidates (except possibly Joe Biden) will seem like newcomers on the stage. Perhaps for this reason, there's been very little policy proposed in this area. That's just as well, as nearly every foreign policy concern can be reduced to a simplistic, conservative fear of otherness. And in a world where terrorism threatens, fear is a potent weapon.
16. Immigration. We're beginning to move away from topics that are sure losers. Immigration itself would be much lower on our list, but in our time, immigration means our current president's obsession with undocumented immigration, including asylum seekers. For places like Wisconsin, focusing on immigration is likely a toss-up, in terms of gaining votes. There's shocking mistreatment of desperate families, the historical blessings of past immigration, the sympathy-inducing human stories. But, on the other hand, there's the simplistic us/them construct, the illegality element, and the inevitability of migration pressures increasing (population growth, climate chaos) that together will almost certainly be used to fan the flames of fear and anger. Nevertheless, most candidates have been sympathetic to the arguments for displaying a greater humanity, especially Julian Castro and Beto O'Rourke.
15. Reproductive Rights. At first glance, we can say that a majority of voters support abortion rights. And the argument that furthering contraception access will in turn limit abortion is obvious, and a good way to frame the issue. But aside from the tone of argument, there's not much room for gaining votes, especially in mixed liberal / conservative areas of the country like Wisconsin. All major candidates are supportive, though Kirsten Gillibrand has suggested abortion would be a litmus test for her if she were to appoint Supreme Court justices.
14. Gun Control. Unlike previous elections, there's now a near-consensus that something needs to be done, with young voters pressing the issue. Unfortunately, due to the political imbalances inherent in our system, places like Wisconsin and Iowa are likely tipping points in the election, and gun control, outside of urban areas, is a neutral issue at best, with equally numerous supporters on each side. A state-by-state live-and-let-live approach to the issue is probably the most likely. Cory Booker has a comprehensive policy proposal. Would it sell in Wisconsin, outside Milwaukee?
Upside
13. Drug Policy. The momentum to overturn harsh drug sentencing, free non-violent drug offenders, and allow states to follow different paths on drug enforcement is gathering steam. Treating opioid addiction, for example, as a disease instead of a punishable offense is also trending. These are welcome reversals of outdated, bad policy, but will they garner votes, compared to the inevitable stirring of fear on the other side? A particularly attractive approach to remediation is Amy Klobuchar's bi-partisan clemency board plan that would see non-violent offenders released from federal detention, thanks to a president's say-so after a speedy one-step screening process.
12. Addressing Income Inequality. Perhaps the most exciting idea out there is Cory Booker's Baby Bonds: set aside nest eggs for each child born into poverty (a poverty gradient is used to allocate less to those born into somewhat better off households). This would allow Americans to honestly believe that ours is the land of opportunity. There are numerous other permutations, including Kamala Harris' housing assistance. Booker's, though, has an endearing quality (we all love innocent babies). Though it could be close, Baby Bonds are probably a net vote winner, especially if the cost is modest enough.
11. Trade. Sending the ag economy into a tailspin, as our current president has done, is probably the worst own-goal one can imagine, since states like Iowa and Wisconsin are on the line. But there are good arguments on both sides. Many populist candidates, including those from the Rust Belt, denounce NAFTA, China, and the outsourcing of jobs. On the other side are those who understand that trade has boosted economies, especially in coastal, export-dependent states. Campaigning against harmful tariffs would seem logical, until one realizes that trade is yet another us/them issue easily demagogued by desperate politicians reliant on the fear factor. Sherrod Brown, a candidate who has since dropped out, was an ardent proponent of the anti-trade position.
10. Universal Basic Income. UBI is the idea that everyone gets, say $1,000 a year. On the campaign trail UBI has been associated with Andrew Yang. UBI gets everyone's instinctive "Hey, $$$$ for me!" vote, before we think twice: Where's the money coming from? And how much would a UBI cost? It's easy to figure out: 327 million x $1,000 = 327 billion (Yang advocates twelve times that). That's when the instinctive vote becomes a 'Gee that's expensive; sure nice, but unaffordable.' Of course, if not everyone gets the $1,000, and it accumulates into a nest egg over time, it's then more affordable, and we have #12 (above).
9. Increasing the EITC. The Earned Income Tax Credit is an excellent way to combine politics with income assistance. Those who work are generally deemed worthy, while those unwilling to work are harder to assist, simply because there's resistance to aiding anyone who isn't at least appearing to try to make a living. So, the EITC usually wins out...when funding is available.
8. Higher Teacher Salaries. Kamala Harris recently proposed toping off teacher salaries (a $3 Fed match for every $1 state dollar) to make up for the difference between what teachers earn and what similar professionals are paid. Because teachers are active politically, unionized, and often cherished, this could be smart policy, even if the chance of enactment is minimal.
7. $15-an-Hour Minimum Wage. Nearly every major candidate supports $15 an hour--a benchmark that several states have enacted using varying timetables. If pegged to inflation, the minimum wage would of course be much higher than it is now.
6. Infrastructure. Construction means something sweet for nearly everyone. Unions, private contractors, and suppliers see dollar signs. Most voters see improved facilities and an easier life. Include building retrofits, energy system upgrades, public transportation overhauls, etc., and we're half-way to a Green New Deal.
5. College Financing. Most college financial assistance plans belong in the 'No-Gain' category, as so few benefit, and if you're heading to college, you're likely to be well enough off. But, crafted intelligently, a college financing plan can appeal to a large enough voter segment to constitute a large net gain, vote-wise. I have in mind Amy Klobuchar's Free Community College plan, something that several states and localities have experimented with. The reason it 'wins': the middle class (literally, the middle achievers in a high school graduating class) would be most likely to benefit. Most upper class students (and the poor who've done well academically) either don't need the government's help, win scholarships (including Pell Grants), or are otherwise on their way to a 4-year institution.
Winners
4. Voting Rights. Voting for our favorite candidate is something we take for granted, so ensuring that we all can vote, and safeguarding the practice itself is relatively hum-drum. Then comes vote-by-mail; not only is it so much more convenient (one picks and chooses the time to fill out and send in one's ballot, rather than having to wait in line for who knows how long), but it's free (no postage required) and is already the norm in some states (Oregon, Colorado). Ranked Choice voting (used in Maine), statehood for Washington D.C. / Puerto Rico, paper ballots (to allow recounts), cyber-security, and federal oversight of minority empowerment are all issues that are important, and have their own constituencies (for example, third party voters love Ranked Choice, and approximately 1 million Puerto Rican-Americans live in Florida). Most candidates are behind a recent House bill promoting these matters.
3. Busting Up Monopolies. This is key to a seeming impossibility: locking up states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, plus putting Iowa, Ohio, and North Carolina in play. The common link here is agriculture. Rather than focus on just trade (Trump's tariffs), highlighting the corporate monopolies that exist in the farm sector can be a killer issue. As Amy Klobuchar noted in her recent town hall on Fox, there's an epidemic of farmer suicides, due mainly to families being squeezed from both sellers of input, and buyers of output. When a farmer can't choose between competitors, there's no hope. This was the genesis of American Populism, back in the 19th century, and there is no better metaphor for describing why monopolies are destructive than farmers killing themselves. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, John Hickenlooper, and other populists have been outspoken on this issue.
2. Climate Change. Young people tend to vote Democratic, if they vote. Generating hope and enthusiasm is key, and fighting Climate Change is probably the best way forward. It pits youthful vigor against the stale, head-in-the-sand denialism of old, greedy bumblers. All 2020 candidates have supported one strategy or another, with Jay Inslee having the most detailed, informed plan, and Beto O'Rourke offering his version. Advice: to avoid fear-mongering, forget about a carbon tax, for now, and instead advocate world-wide, country-by-country reductions in defense spending to pay for needed initiatives. This also avoids the inevitable complaint that other countries won't be doing their fair share.
1. Health Care. Republicans have made such an obvious mess of health care policy that one has to shake one's head in awe at their stupidity. With such an easy case to make, Dems have only one potential problem: if the conversation somehow changes from pre-existing conditions (the horror stories are endless) to the forced end of private insurance--given Medicare-For-All (tens of millions would then be susceptible to fear mongering). As everyone knows by now, Bernie Sanders has been a big advocate of Medicare For All, and many other candidates have signed on, with several back-tracking recently. The case for incremental, non-threatening change, building on ObamaCare, with an added Public Option (buy-in to Medicaid or Medicare for those who want it) is overwhelming. By the end of the year, expect nearly all remaining candidates (exception for Bernie and Co.) to accept the winning hand that the fickle finger of fate has dealt them.
....................
Update: 5/14/19:
I've been reminded that this list misses one big issue sure to factor in 2020:
Trump Corruption -- I grow weary just contemplating the myriad wrong-headedness. Take just one example: Putting former corporate insiders in charge of our government's oversight of their former colleagues. It's laughably ridiculous, ...until one realizes how utterly serious the situation has become. Infants are in danger from a toxic chemical? Bring in an industry insider who quashes any regulation that might protect children. If that isn't enough evidence of unworthiness, I don't know what is.
Update: 5/18/19:
Recent news of Red state over-reach on abortion (no exceptions, timelines that are absurd) likely moves #15 up a half-dozen or so notches.
Sunday, May 5, 2019
"Why Not Bernie" in One Paragraph
#219: How He Could Really Help
................
In this longer version (link), I toast Senator Sanders for making the progressive case. I also suggest how I see him fitting into a best case plan to turn the Senate into a progressive dynamo that generates truly progressive legislation. You'll also find a challenge to Bernie regarding Rojava, RE: his foreign policy.
................
In this longer version (link), I toast Senator Sanders for making the progressive case. I also suggest how I see him fitting into a best case plan to turn the Senate into a progressive dynamo that generates truly progressive legislation. You'll also find a challenge to Bernie regarding Rojava, RE: his foreign policy.
Why Not Bernie?
#218: He's Brash, Quick, Powerful
.........................
I admit, I've been hard on Senator Sanders. And while I don't retract anything I've said, I do admire a force that moves the conversation towards the sensible. So, here's a toast to the burner, himself.
Take his recent statements about the US military. Essentially, we're spending way too much, and lining the pockets of defense industry big wigs to boot. I agree 100% with those sentiments.
I think the best approach politically, though, is to have a combined good cop/bad cop message, with Bernie and Co. moving the conversation, and the actual presidential candidate aiming for what's really at stake: the Senate. Winning a senate seat in Iowa, for example, will require a calming, assuring manner that doesn't feed the fears stoked by Republicans, but instead emphasizes inherent advantages like Who do you trust with health care?, Who looks out for the little guy?, Who'll do something about Climate Change?, and Who bases policy on expert opinion, rather than greed?
Since these messages will win, absent too much fear-mongering, Bernie would be most effective in the senate, keeping the conversation progressive.
And what can we expect from the Senate, the traditional bottleneck to progressivism? As I've described before (link), senators need not do away with the filibuster (a 60-vote super-majority required for all legislation), but simply create an exception:
Step 1: Create expert panels on various topics: the Climate Crisis, Voting, Nutrition, Bio-Diversity, Defense, Reproductive Health, Drug Policy, Education Funding, etc.
Step 2: Hold hearings where senators are advised on a particular issue.
Step 3: Allow legislation, informed by said hearings, and endorsed by the relevant experts, to pass with a 51-vote majority.
This preserves the filibuster, but allows informed, progressive legislation. And, it emphasizes the enormous gulf between knowledge-based, and a mob-based politics.
Because Senator Sanders represents a challenge to how we think, I have a challenge for him: How would he reconcile the needs of a deserving people, who've set up a remarkably democratic, egalitarian, non-sexist, environmentally-informed government (and have been the backbone in defeating ISIS) with his lighter foot-print overseas foreign policy thrust? The Rojava peoples (mainly Kurds, but also including others) now host huge detention camps containing captured ISIS men, women and children.
Could the answer be that we focus on optimism, and encourage the good, rather than fear, which highlights the bad?
.........................
I admit, I've been hard on Senator Sanders. And while I don't retract anything I've said, I do admire a force that moves the conversation towards the sensible. So, here's a toast to the burner, himself.
Take his recent statements about the US military. Essentially, we're spending way too much, and lining the pockets of defense industry big wigs to boot. I agree 100% with those sentiments.
I think the best approach politically, though, is to have a combined good cop/bad cop message, with Bernie and Co. moving the conversation, and the actual presidential candidate aiming for what's really at stake: the Senate. Winning a senate seat in Iowa, for example, will require a calming, assuring manner that doesn't feed the fears stoked by Republicans, but instead emphasizes inherent advantages like Who do you trust with health care?, Who looks out for the little guy?, Who'll do something about Climate Change?, and Who bases policy on expert opinion, rather than greed?
Since these messages will win, absent too much fear-mongering, Bernie would be most effective in the senate, keeping the conversation progressive.
And what can we expect from the Senate, the traditional bottleneck to progressivism? As I've described before (link), senators need not do away with the filibuster (a 60-vote super-majority required for all legislation), but simply create an exception:
Step 1: Create expert panels on various topics: the Climate Crisis, Voting, Nutrition, Bio-Diversity, Defense, Reproductive Health, Drug Policy, Education Funding, etc.
Step 2: Hold hearings where senators are advised on a particular issue.
Step 3: Allow legislation, informed by said hearings, and endorsed by the relevant experts, to pass with a 51-vote majority.
This preserves the filibuster, but allows informed, progressive legislation. And, it emphasizes the enormous gulf between knowledge-based, and a mob-based politics.
Because Senator Sanders represents a challenge to how we think, I have a challenge for him: How would he reconcile the needs of a deserving people, who've set up a remarkably democratic, egalitarian, non-sexist, environmentally-informed government (and have been the backbone in defeating ISIS) with his lighter foot-print overseas foreign policy thrust? The Rojava peoples (mainly Kurds, but also including others) now host huge detention camps containing captured ISIS men, women and children.
Could the answer be that we focus on optimism, and encourage the good, rather than fear, which highlights the bad?
Thursday, May 2, 2019
Old-And-In-The-Way -- the 1 Paragraph Version
#217: Quick Check
...................
My old-and-in-the-way post (link) discusses what could happen if Biden and Bernie dominate the 2020 Democratic primary field through the summer and into the fall. I describe a 2020 Emergency Plan with several scenarios that would see Democrats team up to overtake the older generation. The first scenario involves a pair of individual candidates running as president and veep (with voters choosing which). The second involves a 3-member team. And the third imagines an elaborate scheme to divvy up states among all prominent candidates in order to not only stop the near-80-year-olds, but in the process to determine who has the most pull with voters, and as a result, who becomes the nominee. The over-arching theme is unity in diversity, as candidates bring their home state and regional communities with them into the general election season.
...................
My old-and-in-the-way post (link) discusses what could happen if Biden and Bernie dominate the 2020 Democratic primary field through the summer and into the fall. I describe a 2020 Emergency Plan with several scenarios that would see Democrats team up to overtake the older generation. The first scenario involves a pair of individual candidates running as president and veep (with voters choosing which). The second involves a 3-member team. And the third imagines an elaborate scheme to divvy up states among all prominent candidates in order to not only stop the near-80-year-olds, but in the process to determine who has the most pull with voters, and as a result, who becomes the nominee. The over-arching theme is unity in diversity, as candidates bring their home state and regional communities with them into the general election season.
2020 Dems: Who Wins?
#216: Spinning An Old And In The Way Tune
.......................
It's tempting to look back at 2016, figure out what went wrong, and determine just how Democratic candidates need to adjust, ahead of 2020: maybe more charisma (gesticulation, speaking excitedly), or more inspiring policy (Medicare-For-All, an income guarantee).
Fortunately, neither 'lesson' from 2016 need be learned. Hillary Clinton not only won the popular vote, but dominated polling during the entire election cycle. FBI director James Comey's letter to Congress in the days before the election swung polls dramatically; this did the trick when combined with foreign interference--welcomed by the Republican candidate.
So, the only concern Dems should have at this point, since according to recent polling a full 55% of voters would definitely not vote for Trump, is whether there's anything that could possibly replicate 2016's Comey Letter effect. Considering the current president's approval rating--by far the lowest of any recent third year incumbent (despite relative prosperity) it would take a really big deal to turn around Trump's fortunes.
And yet there is such a danger that we're all aware of, but few take seriously: old age.
If either current front-runner, Biden or Bernie, is nominated, he'll be approximately 78 - 79 on election day, with a not-insignificant chance that health issues will surface. What if a minor stroke were to fell the nominee? Uncertainty would ensue, and with it the yawning maw of disruption--perhaps a Comey Letter's worth. Such a health issue could easily befall a near-80-year-old, and even if relatively minor, could cause a rethink on the part of some low-information voters. It should be noted that Hillary Clinton's single health episode (at a 9/11 memorial event) coincided with her weakest standing in the polls.
Given our current politics, an episode involving a late evening's tired, haggard appearance would almost inevitably surface, and, replayed endlessly on tape, serve to remind voters of Bernie or Biden's mortal release. Objectively, nominating the elderly is simply nuts when a major argument against another term for our current president is that he'll be older than any other successful candidate for the presidency, and a solid third of voters say they won't vote for someone in their 70s. Plus, most recent presidents have been re-elected, and that slight increase in the odds is indeed precious with so much at stake. Denying Democratic voters a 2024 re-election romp (if an elderly 2020 candidate promised to serve only one term) is electoral malpractice. And, an 83- or 84-year-old candidate running for re-election in 2024 is all but out of the question given the pressures of a modern campaign, let alone the certain decrease in that candidate's odds of winning given perceptions regarding advanced age.
Unfortunately, Democratic voters don't seem to be thinking ahead. Polls have shown that our two oldest candidates are well ahead in the polls. Of course this could change. After all, it's another full year and a half before their aging bodies would experience the near-constant stress that is non-stop campaigning. So, there's plenty of time for the field to evolve; besides, no candidate is likely to consider emergency action until the first few debates have allowed that change to be made manifest. But, by the fall, if Biden and Bernie are still well ahead in the polls, it may be time to put in place an emergency plan that for now can be shelved.
Emergency Plan 2020
As I've advocated on this blog, 2020's primary season could mark a divergence from the traditional pattern of individual candidates duking it out. Why not a candidate pair? This has been tried previously with a drop-out candidate as an early veep pick. The superior formulation, however, would be for two candidates to team up, and let voters pick the president (highest vote getter) and veep (the lower of the two).
Scenario A: Let's say Bernie and Biden are at 20% each, Harris and Buttigieg are at 13% and 8%, the rest trailing, and a large undecided contingent. If Harris and Mayor Pete team up, they have, together, more than each front-runner. And, most likely, the alliance would become the attractive, visible, middle way between the wild-haired radical and the establishment centrist, and so attract even more support.
But, Bernie and Biden both being as low as 20% is unlikely. So, something more might be needed.
Scenario B: Let's say Bernie is at 20% and Biden, 25%. So, Harris and Buttigieg add another candidate to their ticket, say, Warren. So, 13 + 8 + 7 = 28%. Warren agrees to remain a senator, but guide the Harris / Buttigieg (or vice versa) administration on economic policy.
........................................................................
Update: February 16, '20: I'm tempted to erase the rest, given how the campaign has turned out. Instead, I suggest you not read any further, but instead substitute any two of your favorite candidates for the Harris/Buttigieg 'pair', above.
Or, simply trust that none of the 70-80 -year-olds will still be kicking, come Milwaukee. Or, if they do (Sanders, Bloomberg), that they will be overtaken by the younger candidates. Ironically, it may be that older voters, who tend to support Klobuchar/Buttigieg, know all too well the vicissitudes of advanced age.
.........................................................................
But, according to Democratic primary rules, gaining delegates requires at least 15% of the vote in each state. So, it could easily be that Harris, Buttigieg and Warren would simply split their 28% three ways, which would of course be disastrous. So, let's look at one last possibility.
Scenario C: Let's say that Bernie and Biden each have 24%, Harris is at 13, Mayor Pete at 8, Warren at 7, Beto and Booker at 3%, Castro, Klobuchar, Inslee, and Yang at 2%, and Hickenlooper, Bullock and Ryan at 1, with the rest divided between others and 'undecided'. If all the candidates I've mentioned form a team, they're a combined 46%, to 24% each for Bernie and Biden.
This begins to make sense if team members pledge to stay out of other candidates' home state primaries. And while it's possible that doing this might not translate into a solid 46% for Booker in New Jersey, say, it's likely to come close, as primary voters are predominantly tuned-in politicos, and would probably understand the logic of voting for a team member. And if it were the only way to stop the two front-runners, it would be better than everyone save Biden and Bernie receiving less than 15% of the vote except in favorite-son and -daughter states.
Would this be enough for the team to win? We can't be sure, mainly because delegate allocation rules are conditional (link), and depend on things like Democratic turnout in prior elections (link). But, we can take a look, nevertheless:
Home States (limited to candidates with state-wide electoral experience or national prominence):
California: Harris
Colorado: Hickenlooper
Indiana: Buttigieg
Massachussetts: Warren
Minnesota: Klobuchar
Montana: Bullock
New Jersey: Booker
New York: Yang
Ohio: Ryan
Texas: Beto, Castro
Washington: Inslee
Using the final chart at the second link in the above paragraph, we see that these states represent 1,519 pledged delegates (votes on the first ballot) out of 3,768, with 1,884 needed to win. If the Team won 46% of the vote nationally, their home-state edge would likely put them over the top. This is because:
* The team approach would be inclusive, drawing on the strengths of each member. A voter whose preferred candidate might otherwise have been knocked out early could maintain sufficient fervor to actually vote.
* The alternatives, Biden and Bernie, would likely act to split the opposition, preventing either from getting anywhere near 50%.
* The team approach would massively increase Democratic chances in the general election. That's because team members would bring their communities to the polls.
Wait a minute, you say, How does the team concept actually work?
First, individual candidates officially pledge to honor a pact that pools all pledged delegates, promising that pool to the winner.
Second, that winner would be the candidate who received the most votes in all but candidate home states (which wouldn't count--otherwise, California vs. Montana).
Third, an average of all credentialed polls in the preceding month (likely, October '19) would be used to draft remaining states after home states are excluded; the polling average leader would receive first pick. For example, using our above example, Harris would pick first, then Mayor Pete, then Warren, etc.
Fourth, a candidate's state selections would each see that picker matched with only Biden and Bernie, with campaigning help provided by other team members.
Fifth, the winner would almost certainly become the Democratic presidential nominee, and would then choose a veep and cabinet secretaries from among the team's other members. Of course some members would be more valuable in their current elected office, and would likely ask to be left out of the selection process.
Sixth, the general election campaign would see team members bring their community's voters on board, allowing message-appropriate, localized campaigning in senate races, and maintaining the excitement from their primary candidacies. Unity in diversity.
Scenario C, continued (drafting states):
States (hypothetically) drafted, in polling order:
Harris: picks Illinois
Buttigieg: Michigan
Warren: Connecticut
Beto: Florida
Booker: Pennsylvania
Castro: Arizona
Klobuchar: Wisconsin
Inslee: Oregon
Yang: Alaska
Hickenlooper: Iowa
Bullock: Idaho
Ryan: Kentucky
Harris: Georgia
Buttigieg: North Carolina
Warren: Rhode Island
Beto: New Mexico
Booker: Virginia
Castro: Nevada
Klobuchar: Missouri
Inslee: Maryland
Yang: Hawaii
Hickenlooper: Kansas
Bullock: South Dakota
Ryan: Tennessee
Harris: South Carolina
Buttigieg: Democrats Abroad
Warren: New Hampshire
Beto: Oklahoma
Booker: Mississippi
Castro: Puerto Rico
Klobuchar: Nebraska
Inslee: Maine
Yang: American Samoa
Hickenlooper: Utah
Bullock: Wyoming
Ryan: West Virginia
Harris: Alabama
Buttigieg: Delaware
Warren: Vermont
Beto: Arkansas
Booker: Washington D.C.
Castro: Louisiana
Klobuchar: North Dakota
Inslee: Virgin Islands
Yang: Northern Marianas
Hickenlooper: Guam
But why wouldn't candidates always choose the state with the largest population? Because the formula for determining the nominee would be based on one more factor: a candidate's percentage (against Bernie and Biden) overall. So, if a candidate received 20%, 18%, 40% and 32%, compared to another candidate's 39%, 48%, 28%, and 35%, the second candidate receives a bigger multiplier. So 3 million votes, multiplied by sixth place = 6 million points. 2 million votes multiplied by 2nd place = 8 million points (five points for 1st place; four for 2nd and 3rd; three for 4th and 5th, two for 6th and 7th, and one for 8th through 12th).
Plus, as you can see from her selections, a candidate like Warren might be most interested in getting a prime cabinet post (economic policy), and want to otherwise take one for the team (being #1 in winning percentage, but not actually garnering that many points due to her picking smaller states).
Here are the above scenario's picks by candidate:
Harris: Illinois, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama
Buttigieg: Michigan, North Carolina, Democrats Abroad, Delaware
Warren: Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont
Beto: Florida, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas
Booker: Pennsylvania, Virginia, Mississippi, Washington D.C.
Castro: Arizona, Nevada, Puerto Rico, Louisiana
Klobuchar: Wisconsin, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota
Inslee: Oregon, Maryland, Maine, Virgin Islands
Yang: Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, Northern Marianas
Hickenlooper: Iowa, Kansas, Utah, Guam
Bullock: Idaho, South Dakota, Wyoming
Ryan: Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia
Who wins? Let's first eliminate the candidates who don't have the population base to win. These are candidates aiming for their party's heart, trying for the largest possible winning percentage against Biden and Bernie, hoping for a cabinet position, a reputation for effective campaigning, and a place in history: Warren, Castro, Inslee, Yang, Hickenlooper, Bullock and Ryan.
This leaves five first tier contenders: Harris, Buttigieg, Beto, Booker and Klobuchar. Now let's describe each candidate's chances in countdown order:
5. Klobuchar: She simply must reach #1 in winning percentage because she has a relatively small base population.
4. Beto: While he has Florida, with its enormous population, he must do well there, which will be a challenge with Florida's retirees perhaps preferring older candidates.
3. Booker: He's the only candidate who could possibly do well enough in Pennsylvania (against Biden), since New Jersey is close by. That'll be tough.
2. Buttigieg: Can he win by a big enough percentage in Bernie (Michigan) and Biden (Delaware) territory?
1. Harris: She has the population base, but will she be able to multiply it with more than a '1' or '2'?
All five have a decent chance in this scenario, so that all candidates, including those looking to the future, would have to seriously consider joining the pact.
Though Scenario C is perhaps the most interesting, the most likely is probably 'A', where two candidates team up to become a attention-getting middle-way between the whiff of Bernie radicalism and the hint of Biden centrism.
...............................
Additional facets that we've not explored in this piece:
* Are primary contests open to voters from other parties? Some are.
* Is each state's contest a primary or a caucus? All but 2-4 are primaries.
* What are the earliest/latest filing deadlines for the 57 primaries/caucuses, and could candidates remove their names from the ballot after initially filing?
To explore these additional facets, check out the list of primaries/caucuses, here.
As for filing deadlines and erasing a ballot presence, Scenario C could be implemented with names of 'non-competing' candidates left on the ballot, but this would be unsettling, given the 15% threshold. More likely, assuming ballot access to be non-reversible, is that two candidates form a pair as president/veep (with voters deciding), and hope that the attention thus generated would be enough for both to receive 15% in enough states to win.
.......................
It's tempting to look back at 2016, figure out what went wrong, and determine just how Democratic candidates need to adjust, ahead of 2020: maybe more charisma (gesticulation, speaking excitedly), or more inspiring policy (Medicare-For-All, an income guarantee).
Fortunately, neither 'lesson' from 2016 need be learned. Hillary Clinton not only won the popular vote, but dominated polling during the entire election cycle. FBI director James Comey's letter to Congress in the days before the election swung polls dramatically; this did the trick when combined with foreign interference--welcomed by the Republican candidate.
So, the only concern Dems should have at this point, since according to recent polling a full 55% of voters would definitely not vote for Trump, is whether there's anything that could possibly replicate 2016's Comey Letter effect. Considering the current president's approval rating--by far the lowest of any recent third year incumbent (despite relative prosperity) it would take a really big deal to turn around Trump's fortunes.
And yet there is such a danger that we're all aware of, but few take seriously: old age.
If either current front-runner, Biden or Bernie, is nominated, he'll be approximately 78 - 79 on election day, with a not-insignificant chance that health issues will surface. What if a minor stroke were to fell the nominee? Uncertainty would ensue, and with it the yawning maw of disruption--perhaps a Comey Letter's worth. Such a health issue could easily befall a near-80-year-old, and even if relatively minor, could cause a rethink on the part of some low-information voters. It should be noted that Hillary Clinton's single health episode (at a 9/11 memorial event) coincided with her weakest standing in the polls.
Given our current politics, an episode involving a late evening's tired, haggard appearance would almost inevitably surface, and, replayed endlessly on tape, serve to remind voters of Bernie or Biden's mortal release. Objectively, nominating the elderly is simply nuts when a major argument against another term for our current president is that he'll be older than any other successful candidate for the presidency, and a solid third of voters say they won't vote for someone in their 70s. Plus, most recent presidents have been re-elected, and that slight increase in the odds is indeed precious with so much at stake. Denying Democratic voters a 2024 re-election romp (if an elderly 2020 candidate promised to serve only one term) is electoral malpractice. And, an 83- or 84-year-old candidate running for re-election in 2024 is all but out of the question given the pressures of a modern campaign, let alone the certain decrease in that candidate's odds of winning given perceptions regarding advanced age.
Unfortunately, Democratic voters don't seem to be thinking ahead. Polls have shown that our two oldest candidates are well ahead in the polls. Of course this could change. After all, it's another full year and a half before their aging bodies would experience the near-constant stress that is non-stop campaigning. So, there's plenty of time for the field to evolve; besides, no candidate is likely to consider emergency action until the first few debates have allowed that change to be made manifest. But, by the fall, if Biden and Bernie are still well ahead in the polls, it may be time to put in place an emergency plan that for now can be shelved.
Emergency Plan 2020
As I've advocated on this blog, 2020's primary season could mark a divergence from the traditional pattern of individual candidates duking it out. Why not a candidate pair? This has been tried previously with a drop-out candidate as an early veep pick. The superior formulation, however, would be for two candidates to team up, and let voters pick the president (highest vote getter) and veep (the lower of the two).
Scenario A: Let's say Bernie and Biden are at 20% each, Harris and Buttigieg are at 13% and 8%, the rest trailing, and a large undecided contingent. If Harris and Mayor Pete team up, they have, together, more than each front-runner. And, most likely, the alliance would become the attractive, visible, middle way between the wild-haired radical and the establishment centrist, and so attract even more support.
But, Bernie and Biden both being as low as 20% is unlikely. So, something more might be needed.
Scenario B: Let's say Bernie is at 20% and Biden, 25%. So, Harris and Buttigieg add another candidate to their ticket, say, Warren. So, 13 + 8 + 7 = 28%. Warren agrees to remain a senator, but guide the Harris / Buttigieg (or vice versa) administration on economic policy.
........................................................................
Update: February 16, '20: I'm tempted to erase the rest, given how the campaign has turned out. Instead, I suggest you not read any further, but instead substitute any two of your favorite candidates for the Harris/Buttigieg 'pair', above.
Or, simply trust that none of the 70-80 -year-olds will still be kicking, come Milwaukee. Or, if they do (Sanders, Bloomberg), that they will be overtaken by the younger candidates. Ironically, it may be that older voters, who tend to support Klobuchar/Buttigieg, know all too well the vicissitudes of advanced age.
.........................................................................
But, according to Democratic primary rules, gaining delegates requires at least 15% of the vote in each state. So, it could easily be that Harris, Buttigieg and Warren would simply split their 28% three ways, which would of course be disastrous. So, let's look at one last possibility.
Scenario C: Let's say that Bernie and Biden each have 24%, Harris is at 13, Mayor Pete at 8, Warren at 7, Beto and Booker at 3%, Castro, Klobuchar, Inslee, and Yang at 2%, and Hickenlooper, Bullock and Ryan at 1, with the rest divided between others and 'undecided'. If all the candidates I've mentioned form a team, they're a combined 46%, to 24% each for Bernie and Biden.
This begins to make sense if team members pledge to stay out of other candidates' home state primaries. And while it's possible that doing this might not translate into a solid 46% for Booker in New Jersey, say, it's likely to come close, as primary voters are predominantly tuned-in politicos, and would probably understand the logic of voting for a team member. And if it were the only way to stop the two front-runners, it would be better than everyone save Biden and Bernie receiving less than 15% of the vote except in favorite-son and -daughter states.
Would this be enough for the team to win? We can't be sure, mainly because delegate allocation rules are conditional (link), and depend on things like Democratic turnout in prior elections (link). But, we can take a look, nevertheless:
Home States (limited to candidates with state-wide electoral experience or national prominence):
California: Harris
Colorado: Hickenlooper
Indiana: Buttigieg
Massachussetts: Warren
Minnesota: Klobuchar
Montana: Bullock
New Jersey: Booker
New York: Yang
Ohio: Ryan
Texas: Beto, Castro
Washington: Inslee
Using the final chart at the second link in the above paragraph, we see that these states represent 1,519 pledged delegates (votes on the first ballot) out of 3,768, with 1,884 needed to win. If the Team won 46% of the vote nationally, their home-state edge would likely put them over the top. This is because:
* The team approach would be inclusive, drawing on the strengths of each member. A voter whose preferred candidate might otherwise have been knocked out early could maintain sufficient fervor to actually vote.
* The alternatives, Biden and Bernie, would likely act to split the opposition, preventing either from getting anywhere near 50%.
* The team approach would massively increase Democratic chances in the general election. That's because team members would bring their communities to the polls.
Wait a minute, you say, How does the team concept actually work?
First, individual candidates officially pledge to honor a pact that pools all pledged delegates, promising that pool to the winner.
Second, that winner would be the candidate who received the most votes in all but candidate home states (which wouldn't count--otherwise, California vs. Montana).
Third, an average of all credentialed polls in the preceding month (likely, October '19) would be used to draft remaining states after home states are excluded; the polling average leader would receive first pick. For example, using our above example, Harris would pick first, then Mayor Pete, then Warren, etc.
Fourth, a candidate's state selections would each see that picker matched with only Biden and Bernie, with campaigning help provided by other team members.
Fifth, the winner would almost certainly become the Democratic presidential nominee, and would then choose a veep and cabinet secretaries from among the team's other members. Of course some members would be more valuable in their current elected office, and would likely ask to be left out of the selection process.
Sixth, the general election campaign would see team members bring their community's voters on board, allowing message-appropriate, localized campaigning in senate races, and maintaining the excitement from their primary candidacies. Unity in diversity.
Scenario C, continued (drafting states):
States (hypothetically) drafted, in polling order:
Harris: picks Illinois
Buttigieg: Michigan
Warren: Connecticut
Beto: Florida
Booker: Pennsylvania
Castro: Arizona
Klobuchar: Wisconsin
Inslee: Oregon
Yang: Alaska
Hickenlooper: Iowa
Bullock: Idaho
Ryan: Kentucky
Harris: Georgia
Buttigieg: North Carolina
Warren: Rhode Island
Beto: New Mexico
Booker: Virginia
Castro: Nevada
Klobuchar: Missouri
Inslee: Maryland
Yang: Hawaii
Hickenlooper: Kansas
Bullock: South Dakota
Ryan: Tennessee
Harris: South Carolina
Buttigieg: Democrats Abroad
Warren: New Hampshire
Beto: Oklahoma
Booker: Mississippi
Castro: Puerto Rico
Klobuchar: Nebraska
Inslee: Maine
Yang: American Samoa
Hickenlooper: Utah
Bullock: Wyoming
Ryan: West Virginia
Harris: Alabama
Buttigieg: Delaware
Warren: Vermont
Beto: Arkansas
Booker: Washington D.C.
Castro: Louisiana
Klobuchar: North Dakota
Inslee: Virgin Islands
Yang: Northern Marianas
Hickenlooper: Guam
But why wouldn't candidates always choose the state with the largest population? Because the formula for determining the nominee would be based on one more factor: a candidate's percentage (against Bernie and Biden) overall. So, if a candidate received 20%, 18%, 40% and 32%, compared to another candidate's 39%, 48%, 28%, and 35%, the second candidate receives a bigger multiplier. So 3 million votes, multiplied by sixth place = 6 million points. 2 million votes multiplied by 2nd place = 8 million points (five points for 1st place; four for 2nd and 3rd; three for 4th and 5th, two for 6th and 7th, and one for 8th through 12th).
Plus, as you can see from her selections, a candidate like Warren might be most interested in getting a prime cabinet post (economic policy), and want to otherwise take one for the team (being #1 in winning percentage, but not actually garnering that many points due to her picking smaller states).
Here are the above scenario's picks by candidate:
Harris: Illinois, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama
Buttigieg: Michigan, North Carolina, Democrats Abroad, Delaware
Warren: Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont
Beto: Florida, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas
Booker: Pennsylvania, Virginia, Mississippi, Washington D.C.
Castro: Arizona, Nevada, Puerto Rico, Louisiana
Klobuchar: Wisconsin, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota
Inslee: Oregon, Maryland, Maine, Virgin Islands
Yang: Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, Northern Marianas
Hickenlooper: Iowa, Kansas, Utah, Guam
Bullock: Idaho, South Dakota, Wyoming
Ryan: Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia
Who wins? Let's first eliminate the candidates who don't have the population base to win. These are candidates aiming for their party's heart, trying for the largest possible winning percentage against Biden and Bernie, hoping for a cabinet position, a reputation for effective campaigning, and a place in history: Warren, Castro, Inslee, Yang, Hickenlooper, Bullock and Ryan.
This leaves five first tier contenders: Harris, Buttigieg, Beto, Booker and Klobuchar. Now let's describe each candidate's chances in countdown order:
5. Klobuchar: She simply must reach #1 in winning percentage because she has a relatively small base population.
4. Beto: While he has Florida, with its enormous population, he must do well there, which will be a challenge with Florida's retirees perhaps preferring older candidates.
3. Booker: He's the only candidate who could possibly do well enough in Pennsylvania (against Biden), since New Jersey is close by. That'll be tough.
2. Buttigieg: Can he win by a big enough percentage in Bernie (Michigan) and Biden (Delaware) territory?
1. Harris: She has the population base, but will she be able to multiply it with more than a '1' or '2'?
All five have a decent chance in this scenario, so that all candidates, including those looking to the future, would have to seriously consider joining the pact.
Though Scenario C is perhaps the most interesting, the most likely is probably 'A', where two candidates team up to become a attention-getting middle-way between the whiff of Bernie radicalism and the hint of Biden centrism.
...............................
Additional facets that we've not explored in this piece:
* Are primary contests open to voters from other parties? Some are.
* Is each state's contest a primary or a caucus? All but 2-4 are primaries.
* What are the earliest/latest filing deadlines for the 57 primaries/caucuses, and could candidates remove their names from the ballot after initially filing?
To explore these additional facets, check out the list of primaries/caucuses, here.
As for filing deadlines and erasing a ballot presence, Scenario C could be implemented with names of 'non-competing' candidates left on the ballot, but this would be unsettling, given the 15% threshold. More likely, assuming ballot access to be non-reversible, is that two candidates form a pair as president/veep (with voters deciding), and hope that the attention thus generated would be enough for both to receive 15% in enough states to win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)