#246: Ranking The Likeliest Dozen Names
................
My tweet #1189 ranked Donald Trump as least likely, of 12 possible candidates, to be president-elect on November 4th, 2020. But, since this post concerns our next president, we'll remove Trump and instead use 'other' as a filler for #12.
So, here's that ranked list with my background reasoning:
#12 Other. This could be Nancy Pelosi (if both Trump/Pence are impeached). But the chances are so small, I can't even.... Or, almost as unlikely, a Republican alternative to Trump next year like Bill Weld. Of course if Trump should somehow win, we won't know who our next president is until 2024, or possibly sooner if Trump wins, and then somehow stumbles.
#11 Yang. Improbable candidates have won elections before. After all, pro-wrestler Jesse Ventura became governor of Minnesota a while back; and then there's Trump. But, stage presence accounted for those two unlikelihoods. In Yang's case, there just isn't much charisma. On the other hand, Yang's ideas are fresh, let's say. I reviewed them here. And here's a Quora session in which he lays out his thinking.
#10 O'Rourke. There's raw, youthful exuberance, and then there's the uncanny ability to channel the wisdom of old age in a vigorous, young body. Beto has toggled between the two, but also has a knack for zeroing in on key issues, so who knows.
#9 Sanders. Despite his relatively high poll numbers, Sanders is far from #1. That's because Warren has a positive spin on much the same material, while Sanders channels anger. Plus, if he weren't so intensely negative--and endearing in a way--we'd all probably notice how impossibly old he is for a winning candidate--79 on election day.
#8 Harris. So much raw talent, but somehow Harris finds a way to let down her guard when doing so is not advisable. This is probably because California, and the SF bay area, is a more care-free world than is the national scene. Maybe next time?
#7 Romney. This is the one shocker on my list. The reasoning here is that if Trump's job approval rating drops down into the 30% range during the impeachment hearings, Senate Republicans up for reelection next year may begin to peel away, leading to ratings in the 20% range, which in turn might lead to actual conviction in the Senate. And though this is unlikely, Romney's chances are actually fairly good should Republicans then turn to someone with the name-recognition, financing, and track record to be up and running in a matter of months.
#6 Booker. No candidate likes to admit their campaign is in trouble, but candor is refreshing, especially so if a Hail Mary pass is successful (and it appears Booker's necessary $1.7 million will be raised). Booker is a good fit as the somewhat more moderate Warren, though as I mentioned previously, he really needs to tone down the bulging eyes when he speaks excitedly.
#5 Buttigieg. Articulate, soft-spoken, friendly. Another good fit should a more moderate Warren be called for.
#4 Klobuchar. My own pick as Blue's best bet in the race to control the Senate, and thus enact a Blue agenda. That is, a non-threatening politician who is fluent in farm-speak and, relative to other candidates, will have coattails in Red states like Iowa, Texas and Kentucky. And, she has a sweet disposition, which is always a harder approach to impugn. Klobuchar's chances probably depend on whether, and how quickly, Biden implodes.
#3 Pence. If Trump bites the dust prematurely, there's the very good chance that Pence would be our next president for a year, or even a few months (Trump's likely impeachment may begin to eat away at his confidence, and health; so at his age, and with his diet, a heart attack or stroke isn't all that unlikely).
#2 Biden. The likelihood of Biden winning the nomination, outright, isn't all that good, since he's falling in the polls and has his name associated with Trump's Ukraine scandal. But the 2020 calendar (front-loaded) could result in an inconclusive 1st ballot in July at the Democratic nominating convention in Milwaukee (with 15% as a threshold to gain delegates in each state, Sanders, and possibly others, could acquire a small fraction of delegates; with Biden and Warren splitting the remainder: stalemate). If so, Biden would be the logical 'compromise' candidate, especially since superdelegates (the party's elected Governors, Senators, etc.), would then have a vote on subsequent ballots. Perhaps a deal would be reached whereby Biden would agree to step down in 2024 (he would be 82 that November).
#1 Warren. As Warren has made her way up in the polls, she's looked more and more likely. There's almost a cheery abandon to her delivery (for example, she's effusively welcoming to her questioners). This joy in delivery is difficult for a politician to fake if they don't deeply believe in their mission. But, even if this all bodes well for her, she's appealing to Blue voters. That'll change once she gets to November. Ideas like Medicare for all, free college, reparations, healthcare for undocumented residents, and the like, will be easy targets for the Red candidate. Even so, she's the most likely. I wrote about her here in December of last year.
Saturday, September 28, 2019
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
President Trump's Impossible Successors
#245: Are Rural America's Fortunes About To Nosedive?
..................
I did not see this coming, but the implications of a shift from meat-based, to meatless protein, can't be ignored.
If consumers find meat substitutes preferable--and reports are that the Impossible Burger, for example, is quite tasty--the two-step process of growing animal feed (corn and beans) that is then turned into meat, becomes outdated, and with it the entire physical layout of rural America.
Why Would This Happen?
Using a one-step agricultural model (plant protein becomes Impossible Burger) is both cheaper and requires much less land, compared to the very inefficient conversion of plant to animal protein. Once enough people buy the Impossible Burger and other foods like it, economies of scale will drive down the price. Lab-grown foods, according to this report,
"...will be at least 50 percent, and as much as 80 percent, lower [in price] as
current products. This will result in substantial savings.... The average
U.S. family will save $1,200 a year...."
Won't This Take A Long Time To Unfold?
Not if the price of meat-less protein seriously undercuts meat. If it tastes like meat, and costs a lot less, the change could be sudden and dramatic. Smartphones, for example, took less than ten years to dominate the market for hand-held devices.
What Will Happen To Rural America's Farmers?
Ever since European settlers first plowed American soils, growing meat has been an important focus. And for the self-sufficient homesteader, nothing will change. But for the commercial farmer--the overwhelming majority of agriculture--a collapse of the equation corn-and-beans -->> cattle-and-hogs means a glut, followed by lower prices, resulting in an unprecedented number of bankruptcies.
And The Political Implications?
Rural states with few urban areas (like the plains states of Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, the Dakotas, plus Montana, Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, Mississippi and Alabama) will likely see dramatic decreases in population; and nearly all are Red (Republican). This will eventually render the House of Representatives and Electoral College much friendlier to Blue candidates. The effect in the Senate will be less pronounced, though without farm work, people in rural areas will move to in-state urban areas, tipping the urban/rural balance in those states.
Could A Lower Price For Land Change Anything Else?
Possibly. More private hunting grounds are likely. Larger house lots in rural areas are also probable. Nature reserves become less expensive (huge expanses of restored prairie with herds of buffalo, for example). Maybe a back-to-the-land movement has always been in the offing, but suffered from high land prices.
And What About All The Bankrupt Farmers?
The federal government's safety net will kick in, most likely with a transitioning program to retrain workers.
..................
I did not see this coming, but the implications of a shift from meat-based, to meatless protein, can't be ignored.
If consumers find meat substitutes preferable--and reports are that the Impossible Burger, for example, is quite tasty--the two-step process of growing animal feed (corn and beans) that is then turned into meat, becomes outdated, and with it the entire physical layout of rural America.
Why Would This Happen?
Using a one-step agricultural model (plant protein becomes Impossible Burger) is both cheaper and requires much less land, compared to the very inefficient conversion of plant to animal protein. Once enough people buy the Impossible Burger and other foods like it, economies of scale will drive down the price. Lab-grown foods, according to this report,
"...will be at least 50 percent, and as much as 80 percent, lower [in price] as
current products. This will result in substantial savings.... The average
U.S. family will save $1,200 a year...."
Not if the price of meat-less protein seriously undercuts meat. If it tastes like meat, and costs a lot less, the change could be sudden and dramatic. Smartphones, for example, took less than ten years to dominate the market for hand-held devices.
What Will Happen To Rural America's Farmers?
Ever since European settlers first plowed American soils, growing meat has been an important focus. And for the self-sufficient homesteader, nothing will change. But for the commercial farmer--the overwhelming majority of agriculture--a collapse of the equation corn-and-beans -->> cattle-and-hogs means a glut, followed by lower prices, resulting in an unprecedented number of bankruptcies.
And The Political Implications?
Rural states with few urban areas (like the plains states of Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, the Dakotas, plus Montana, Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, Mississippi and Alabama) will likely see dramatic decreases in population; and nearly all are Red (Republican). This will eventually render the House of Representatives and Electoral College much friendlier to Blue candidates. The effect in the Senate will be less pronounced, though without farm work, people in rural areas will move to in-state urban areas, tipping the urban/rural balance in those states.
Could A Lower Price For Land Change Anything Else?
Possibly. More private hunting grounds are likely. Larger house lots in rural areas are also probable. Nature reserves become less expensive (huge expanses of restored prairie with herds of buffalo, for example). Maybe a back-to-the-land movement has always been in the offing, but suffered from high land prices.
And What About All The Bankrupt Farmers?
The federal government's safety net will kick in, most likely with a transitioning program to retrain workers.
Update 2/4/24: The latest. After a falling off in plant-based meat (that costs roughly the same as the real thing, it seems a breakthrough is at hand.
Sunday, September 15, 2019
Why Medicare-For-All Is Such A Big Lift
#244: ObamaCare Passed By A Whisker
..................
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones points out the basic logic behind universal health coverage:
"The answer, obviously, is to...move everyone into the biggest risk pool of all: the entire country... [T]he US government [can] negotiate better prices...[and]...can spread...costs far more widely than any single company or insurer. That’s both efficient and sensible."
So, the thinking behind Medicare-For-All is that by expanding the risk pool to the entire country, a big medical bill that would hurt a family or small company isn't even noticed by the payer. Which is the traditional role of insurers. Which means they can be eliminated, saving money.
This all makes sense when seen objectively from above. But if you look at it subjectively from below, you'll see why universal coverage is such a big lift.
You're young, you're healthy, and you're in your 20s, 30s or 40s; your medical expenses are few. You have medical coverage through your employer; it's part of your benefit package; you're insurer handles any billing, and what you pay as a young person is quite manageable. Meaning there are four big reasons not to like universal coverage:
1. That enormous increase in taxes.
2. The uncertainty of whether your employer will increase pay when eliminating employee-based coverage.
3. The hidden factor that nobody talks about: you are healthy and only need insurance for minor things, so signing up to pay an average amount doesn't make sense when you hardly use your insurance.
4. The second hidden factor that nobody talks about: you are a Republican believing in individual responsibility. Instead of identifying with your fellow Americans, you identify as a self-sufficient American, proud in your ability to handle anything untoward.
Viewed in this light, Medicare-For-All, even if sensible, will be up against four big reasons for failure, any one of which might be surmountable, but not all four. That's because #4 is perhaps a quarter of all voters. Add in another 20%, say, for all the young, short-term thinkers. Then another few percent for those with excellent employer-based care, and we're already at 50% without touching on the shocking increase in taxes needed to pay for any change--so, we'd probably need to add another 15% or so. Plus, there's the don't-rock-the-boat older voter who'll wonder whether a favorite doctor will still be available.
When polled, a goodly percentage of responses might even say they supported universal coverage, but in the voting booth would instead vote their pocketbook. So, bottom line: 2-to-1 against, with perhaps 5-10% of those 'against' feeling so strongly as to change their 2020 votes for senator and president.
Finally, what makes the focus on Medicare-For-All so ironic, is that Blue's big issue in the 2018 election, the issue that won them the House of Representatives, was Healthcare, specifically Republican attacks on ObamaCare. So, not only are they touting a top-down, enormous pill to swallow, but they're throwing away their most persuasive vote getter. Luckily, the likeliest Dem. candidate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has yet to fully finalize her healthcare plan, and the current front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden, is already on board with a more moderate, progressive plan ('progressive' here defined as making progress, rather than shooting for the moon).
..................
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones points out the basic logic behind universal health coverage:
"The answer, obviously, is to...move everyone into the biggest risk pool of all: the entire country... [T]he US government [can] negotiate better prices...[and]...can spread...costs far more widely than any single company or insurer. That’s both efficient and sensible."
So, the thinking behind Medicare-For-All is that by expanding the risk pool to the entire country, a big medical bill that would hurt a family or small company isn't even noticed by the payer. Which is the traditional role of insurers. Which means they can be eliminated, saving money.
This all makes sense when seen objectively from above. But if you look at it subjectively from below, you'll see why universal coverage is such a big lift.
You're young, you're healthy, and you're in your 20s, 30s or 40s; your medical expenses are few. You have medical coverage through your employer; it's part of your benefit package; you're insurer handles any billing, and what you pay as a young person is quite manageable. Meaning there are four big reasons not to like universal coverage:
1. That enormous increase in taxes.
2. The uncertainty of whether your employer will increase pay when eliminating employee-based coverage.
3. The hidden factor that nobody talks about: you are healthy and only need insurance for minor things, so signing up to pay an average amount doesn't make sense when you hardly use your insurance.
4. The second hidden factor that nobody talks about: you are a Republican believing in individual responsibility. Instead of identifying with your fellow Americans, you identify as a self-sufficient American, proud in your ability to handle anything untoward.
Viewed in this light, Medicare-For-All, even if sensible, will be up against four big reasons for failure, any one of which might be surmountable, but not all four. That's because #4 is perhaps a quarter of all voters. Add in another 20%, say, for all the young, short-term thinkers. Then another few percent for those with excellent employer-based care, and we're already at 50% without touching on the shocking increase in taxes needed to pay for any change--so, we'd probably need to add another 15% or so. Plus, there's the don't-rock-the-boat older voter who'll wonder whether a favorite doctor will still be available.
When polled, a goodly percentage of responses might even say they supported universal coverage, but in the voting booth would instead vote their pocketbook. So, bottom line: 2-to-1 against, with perhaps 5-10% of those 'against' feeling so strongly as to change their 2020 votes for senator and president.
Finally, what makes the focus on Medicare-For-All so ironic, is that Blue's big issue in the 2018 election, the issue that won them the House of Representatives, was Healthcare, specifically Republican attacks on ObamaCare. So, not only are they touting a top-down, enormous pill to swallow, but they're throwing away their most persuasive vote getter. Luckily, the likeliest Dem. candidate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has yet to fully finalize her healthcare plan, and the current front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden, is already on board with a more moderate, progressive plan ('progressive' here defined as making progress, rather than shooting for the moon).
Friday, September 13, 2019
I Stay Up Late And Watch The Debate
#243: Facial Expressions Tell All
Previous debates have seen me go to bed early, meaning I didn't watch the actual debating, just the media coverage. That changed last night, thanks to a day off today. The big difference, I found, was in seeing candidate faces. So, what follows are the three biggest shockers, then my grade for each candidate:
1. Bernie had the bulging eyes and crazed aura of a madman. That frowning, glaring, intense vitriol is surely a turnoff for the average voter. No wonder Bernie has a low ceiling in the polls.
2. Cory Booker has baffled pundits. He seems to be making great debating points, and nobody can understand why he hasn't broken through. But look at his eyes: bulging, intense, disruptive.
3. Andrew Yang is unique in his policies ($$ for everyone) and strategy (ten new signers up to his website receive major $$). But his delivery is jerky and abrupt--hard to see him as plausible.
I Grade The Candidates
A Amy Klobuchar: the Dems best bet to win the Senate (and thus enact a Blue agenda). She was brilliant (an ad-lib Lincoln quote, for example), easily understood (Bernie "wrote the bill; I read the bill"), positive when critical (she noted Bernie's cooperation with her on drug prices), and delivered when exceeding her allotted time (gun control is a Mitch McConnell problem). Her articulate, powerful, turn-around of a probing question (RE: her past record as MN AG) was excellent.
A- Elizabeth Warren: presented a master class in how to deflect unwanted questions. First relax the pacing, which erases the sting of the query. Next, reframe the question, citing the big picture. Then, briefly explain your answer and wrap up in the allotted time. She exuded a healthy, confident, vibe (I think she's been working out). Unfortunately, her brilliant opening statement (in which I detected hints of playfulness, humor, and above all, calm) were followed by an intense grilling on Medicare-For-All, meaning she was on the back foot from then on. Her support for MFA may have originally been necessary, politically (to avoid Bernie having the entire left wing of the party to himself), but it is her Achilles heel (Why? Because of the cost and disruption involved.)
B+ Cory Booker: was unlucky in being called on late in the opening round. By the end of the debate, however, he was among the leaders in speaking time. In general he came across as passionate, yet reasonable, and stood out as noticeably taller than his neighboring speakers. On the other hand, his face was too consistently bug-eyed and emphatic.
B Andrew Yang: clearly had the attempted PR triumph of the night. His $$-to-lucky-website-visitors was a show-stopper. But, it probably came across as a bit cheesy to most watchers. Still, you do what you have to do, and in this case there was a likely reward for being aggressive: a bump in traffic on the old web.
B- Pete Buttigieg: was unlucky in that he kept getting thrown for a loop. First it was having to follow Yang's bombshell offer of $1,000-a-month for ten lucky winners. Then, he was interrupted several times by the moderators with follow-ups, and rather than finishing his sentences, he stopped speaking to listen (perhaps an unconscious power play for both parties). Otherwise, he came across as articulate and sincere, and the fact that his electoral record is limited to his mayoral-ship has now been all but forgotten.
B- Beto O'Rourke: was the recipient of many attaboys from the other candidates; this must have been satisfying for someone who's turned it up to 'over-drive' and left it there. The downside, however, is that youthful vigor can mean loose cannon. Some have observed that Beto has probably lost any chance of winning elective office in Texas as a result of his over-drive (including expletives).
C+ Julian Castro: had the night's biggest surge of combativeness. He called out Biden's apparent waffle (I didn't notice it) on Medicare-For-All (Castro), versus Public Option opt-in/opt-out (Biden). Of course the subtext was that Biden couldn't remember what he had just said. Smart? The tactic might have seemed less mean-spirited if Castro had said it once, then let Biden respond in full, rather than repeating the jab--which never wins. But, Castro gets points for ad-libbing, which is never easy.
C Joe Biden: was in acceptable 'B-' territory if one is willing to tolerate the word-salad approach to public speaking. He has charm, a twinkle in his eye, and a common-guy aura that should be gold. Being in his mid-to-late 70's, though, could be a killer; we'll see.
C- Kamala Harris: seemed to be mourning her summer's rise-then-fall in the polls. She appeared listless at times, and spoke in a let's-try-this-out vein (come on, bash Trump); and, a barely controlled nervousness to her voice (which I take as a warning, in my own life, to stop talking) crept in. But, since she is talented, and a young public figure, there's no sense in looking backwards.
D+ Bernie Sanders: had the misfortune of being hoarse and tired-looking. And he didn't hear his name being called for opening comments. And during that embarrassing pause, he had a perfect frown on his face. And he received a few attaboys--usually a sign that you're not considered a real threat. His admission that he wouldn't want to end the Senate filibuster (and would instead use the Reconciliation process to pass a Blue agenda, relying on a Dem veep to say what could go in such a bill, normally reserved for budgetary matters) makes those who knew what he was talking about shake their heads (Why pretend you're not blowing up the filibuster, when that's what you're doing?)--and most viewers lost him on that one, anyway.
Previous debates have seen me go to bed early, meaning I didn't watch the actual debating, just the media coverage. That changed last night, thanks to a day off today. The big difference, I found, was in seeing candidate faces. So, what follows are the three biggest shockers, then my grade for each candidate:
1. Bernie had the bulging eyes and crazed aura of a madman. That frowning, glaring, intense vitriol is surely a turnoff for the average voter. No wonder Bernie has a low ceiling in the polls.
2. Cory Booker has baffled pundits. He seems to be making great debating points, and nobody can understand why he hasn't broken through. But look at his eyes: bulging, intense, disruptive.
3. Andrew Yang is unique in his policies ($$ for everyone) and strategy (ten new signers up to his website receive major $$). But his delivery is jerky and abrupt--hard to see him as plausible.
I Grade The Candidates
A Amy Klobuchar: the Dems best bet to win the Senate (and thus enact a Blue agenda). She was brilliant (an ad-lib Lincoln quote, for example), easily understood (Bernie "wrote the bill; I read the bill"), positive when critical (she noted Bernie's cooperation with her on drug prices), and delivered when exceeding her allotted time (gun control is a Mitch McConnell problem). Her articulate, powerful, turn-around of a probing question (RE: her past record as MN AG) was excellent.
A- Elizabeth Warren: presented a master class in how to deflect unwanted questions. First relax the pacing, which erases the sting of the query. Next, reframe the question, citing the big picture. Then, briefly explain your answer and wrap up in the allotted time. She exuded a healthy, confident, vibe (I think she's been working out). Unfortunately, her brilliant opening statement (in which I detected hints of playfulness, humor, and above all, calm) were followed by an intense grilling on Medicare-For-All, meaning she was on the back foot from then on. Her support for MFA may have originally been necessary, politically (to avoid Bernie having the entire left wing of the party to himself), but it is her Achilles heel (Why? Because of the cost and disruption involved.)
B+ Cory Booker: was unlucky in being called on late in the opening round. By the end of the debate, however, he was among the leaders in speaking time. In general he came across as passionate, yet reasonable, and stood out as noticeably taller than his neighboring speakers. On the other hand, his face was too consistently bug-eyed and emphatic.
B Andrew Yang: clearly had the attempted PR triumph of the night. His $$-to-lucky-website-visitors was a show-stopper. But, it probably came across as a bit cheesy to most watchers. Still, you do what you have to do, and in this case there was a likely reward for being aggressive: a bump in traffic on the old web.
B- Pete Buttigieg: was unlucky in that he kept getting thrown for a loop. First it was having to follow Yang's bombshell offer of $1,000-a-month for ten lucky winners. Then, he was interrupted several times by the moderators with follow-ups, and rather than finishing his sentences, he stopped speaking to listen (perhaps an unconscious power play for both parties). Otherwise, he came across as articulate and sincere, and the fact that his electoral record is limited to his mayoral-ship has now been all but forgotten.
B- Beto O'Rourke: was the recipient of many attaboys from the other candidates; this must have been satisfying for someone who's turned it up to 'over-drive' and left it there. The downside, however, is that youthful vigor can mean loose cannon. Some have observed that Beto has probably lost any chance of winning elective office in Texas as a result of his over-drive (including expletives).
C+ Julian Castro: had the night's biggest surge of combativeness. He called out Biden's apparent waffle (I didn't notice it) on Medicare-For-All (Castro), versus Public Option opt-in/opt-out (Biden). Of course the subtext was that Biden couldn't remember what he had just said. Smart? The tactic might have seemed less mean-spirited if Castro had said it once, then let Biden respond in full, rather than repeating the jab--which never wins. But, Castro gets points for ad-libbing, which is never easy.
C Joe Biden: was in acceptable 'B-' territory if one is willing to tolerate the word-salad approach to public speaking. He has charm, a twinkle in his eye, and a common-guy aura that should be gold. Being in his mid-to-late 70's, though, could be a killer; we'll see.
C- Kamala Harris: seemed to be mourning her summer's rise-then-fall in the polls. She appeared listless at times, and spoke in a let's-try-this-out vein (come on, bash Trump); and, a barely controlled nervousness to her voice (which I take as a warning, in my own life, to stop talking) crept in. But, since she is talented, and a young public figure, there's no sense in looking backwards.
D+ Bernie Sanders: had the misfortune of being hoarse and tired-looking. And he didn't hear his name being called for opening comments. And during that embarrassing pause, he had a perfect frown on his face. And he received a few attaboys--usually a sign that you're not considered a real threat. His admission that he wouldn't want to end the Senate filibuster (and would instead use the Reconciliation process to pass a Blue agenda, relying on a Dem veep to say what could go in such a bill, normally reserved for budgetary matters) makes those who knew what he was talking about shake their heads (Why pretend you're not blowing up the filibuster, when that's what you're doing?)--and most viewers lost him on that one, anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)