#269: Winners Speak To You
.................
Watching Elizabeth Warren's appearance on Stephen Colbert's late night comedy show (Feb. 26th) convinced me that she has 'it'. Which reminded me that I was planning to critique David Roberts' semi-endorsement of Warren at Vox (Feb. 27th).
Here is Roberts' argument in outline form, followed by my take (in green):
*We're suffering through a crisis of trust.
* Half of the country thinks the other half has ruined the future.
* But, to reestablish trust, we first need to take some medicine.
* Warren gets this, and has plans that will do things like abolish the Senate filibuster, which will then allow big change.
* Without big changes, the system is rigged against Democrats and disillusionment is inevitable.
* Hope for Democrats means convincing voters that government is effective. Unfortunately, more moderate approaches will fail because our political system favors rural areas of the country and smaller states--which tend to be Republican.
This sounds plausible, until one asks the simple question: What'll it take for the typical Wisconsin small town resident to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate?
How about a plan identifying what Democrats need to fix the rigged system? Um, ...no. Or, instead, a candidate who speaks a language you identify with? ***
What do I mean by "speak a language"? In the case of farm and small town voters, it's metaphor, primarily, and secondarily, a feel for the normalcy and order of things. For example, the fact that a candidate campaigns in all 99 Iowa counties is in itself probably borderline unhelpful (speaking to a mere dozen farmers at a small town cafe, rather than reaching suburban voters in a large auditorium), but demonstrates outreach, patience and inclusion. Touting a 'hot plate' recipe for Tater Tots, demonstrates that the candidate knows what 'normal' is on farm and small town dinner tables. Unhealthy? Sure, but getting elected comes before persuasion begins; otherwise, you're talking about big city salads.
And that's my simple critique: Knowing what the answer is (End the Filibuster!) says nothing to the small town nurse sitting at her kitchen table. Even if you explain it carefully, there's something missing. That's because you're talking past her; which, of course, is the hallmark of many a mansplainer.
And, as I've pointed out many times before, achieving the big changes that Warren knows we need is all about having enough Senate votes. And the more purple and red state Senate races Democrats win, the greater the chance those changes pass. Which, aside from the presidency being won or lost in places like Wisconsin, is a good reason why Democrats would do well to speak to the average rural and small town voter.
*** A third choice, which both Roberts and I agree won't work, is Bernie Sanders' revolutionary fervor and pie-in-the-sky dreams-come-true.
Friday, February 28, 2020
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Joe Biden: Father Figure
#268: Could Biden Still Win It?
.........................
In May of last year I suggested that Biden had the opportunity to go down in history as a hero. All he had to do was form a team to contest the Democratic nomination, and personally step aside from the action. This would've been a George Washington thing to do (country over personal power).
Now that events have unfolded as they have, here's a return to that idea, but with Biden still in the mix:
Rather than appoint as many candidates as possible to cabinet posts, as I suggested last year, Biden could ask the remaining major candidates to participate, plus make a few additional offers (for diversity's sake), so:
* President: Joe Biden
* Vice President: Amy Klobuchar
* Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton
* Treasury Secretary (while remaining Senator): Elizabeth Warren
* Energy Secretary (and Climate Czar): Mike Bloomberg
* Small Business Administration: Andrew Yang
* Housing/Urban Development: Pete Buttigieg
* Attorney General: Kamala Harris
* UN Ambassador: Julian Castro
* Veterans Affairs: Tulsi Gabbard (inside, rather than outside tent)
All the above active candidates, except Biden, proceed to "suspend" their primary election candidacies. This would make Team Biden quite competitive. For example, taking the preliminary results in Nevada, this would give Team Biden 56%, to Bernie's 33%, before reallocation.
Plus, additional appointees, especially people of color, could be contacted, and if willing, added during the primary season to further momentum.
Suddenly, the race is Team Biden's to lose, and with a diverse, inclusive field behind him, and a likely majority of delegates, the Bernie Bros would find it difficult to gripe.
And in the general election the Biden-Klobuchar team would be a natural to embrace the states needed to win: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
.........................
In May of last year I suggested that Biden had the opportunity to go down in history as a hero. All he had to do was form a team to contest the Democratic nomination, and personally step aside from the action. This would've been a George Washington thing to do (country over personal power).
Now that events have unfolded as they have, here's a return to that idea, but with Biden still in the mix:
Rather than appoint as many candidates as possible to cabinet posts, as I suggested last year, Biden could ask the remaining major candidates to participate, plus make a few additional offers (for diversity's sake), so:
* President: Joe Biden
* Vice President: Amy Klobuchar
* Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton
* Treasury Secretary (while remaining Senator): Elizabeth Warren
* Energy Secretary (and Climate Czar): Mike Bloomberg
* Small Business Administration: Andrew Yang
* Housing/Urban Development: Pete Buttigieg
* Attorney General: Kamala Harris
* UN Ambassador: Julian Castro
* Veterans Affairs: Tulsi Gabbard (inside, rather than outside tent)
All the above active candidates, except Biden, proceed to "suspend" their primary election candidacies. This would make Team Biden quite competitive. For example, taking the preliminary results in Nevada, this would give Team Biden 56%, to Bernie's 33%, before reallocation.
Plus, additional appointees, especially people of color, could be contacted, and if willing, added during the primary season to further momentum.
Suddenly, the race is Team Biden's to lose, and with a diverse, inclusive field behind him, and a likely majority of delegates, the Bernie Bros would find it difficult to gripe.
And in the general election the Biden-Klobuchar team would be a natural to embrace the states needed to win: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Prediction: If Bernie's The Nominee
#267: Bernie: Good News and Bad
.................
If the 2020 Democratic primaries hand Senator Bernie Sanders the party's nomination--with either a vast plurality, or a slim majority, I predict three things will happen:
1. Bernie Will Win The Popular Vote in November. Whether he wins with a slight majority or an overwhelming edge is hard to say, but by anywhere from a razor thin margin, all the way to a blow out win, Dems will answer the call.
2. But, He'll Lose The Electoral College. He'd likely win by massive margins on the West and Northeast coasts, but lose marginally in key midwestern and Southeast coastal states. So, let's say he wins Michigan and Arizona, and all the other states Hillary Clinton won in 2016, but loses Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida and Georgia. That's 259 to 279.
3. Except, the Democrats Take The Senate, And...Barely...Hold The House. Where Bernie loses votes, relative to 2018, is in the suburbs, where tidy lawns, cheerful dispositions, and middle-of-the-road politics rule. But, centrist Democrats win in Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, Georgia and Iowa, while Alabama and Maine return to their primary colors (red and blue, respectively). This means the Senate is Blue, 52 - 48. In the House, Republicans take back a dozen or so swing seats, but fall short of a majority.
This all results in massive government gridlock, with a second impeachment trial likely, and a Mike Pence presidency (either as a result of impeachment, or due to the president's health) a real possibility by 2024.
......................
Update: 2/25: The bad news could possibly be extraordinary. David Frum makes the case.
The detailed case for Bernie bombing: Broockman and Kalla deliver.
.................
If the 2020 Democratic primaries hand Senator Bernie Sanders the party's nomination--with either a vast plurality, or a slim majority, I predict three things will happen:
1. Bernie Will Win The Popular Vote in November. Whether he wins with a slight majority or an overwhelming edge is hard to say, but by anywhere from a razor thin margin, all the way to a blow out win, Dems will answer the call.
2. But, He'll Lose The Electoral College. He'd likely win by massive margins on the West and Northeast coasts, but lose marginally in key midwestern and Southeast coastal states. So, let's say he wins Michigan and Arizona, and all the other states Hillary Clinton won in 2016, but loses Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida and Georgia. That's 259 to 279.
3. Except, the Democrats Take The Senate, And...Barely...Hold The House. Where Bernie loses votes, relative to 2018, is in the suburbs, where tidy lawns, cheerful dispositions, and middle-of-the-road politics rule. But, centrist Democrats win in Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, Georgia and Iowa, while Alabama and Maine return to their primary colors (red and blue, respectively). This means the Senate is Blue, 52 - 48. In the House, Republicans take back a dozen or so swing seats, but fall short of a majority.
This all results in massive government gridlock, with a second impeachment trial likely, and a Mike Pence presidency (either as a result of impeachment, or due to the president's health) a real possibility by 2024.
......................
Update: 2/25: The bad news could possibly be extraordinary. David Frum makes the case.
The detailed case for Bernie bombing: Broockman and Kalla deliver.
Monday, February 17, 2020
Which State, If Not Iowa?
#266: Getting To Know The Candidates
................
On this Presidents' Day 2020 let's examine primary season alternatives (Which states go first?, What role do dollar$ have in our elections?, and What about the debates?). To do this, we'll quote a recent article: How To Fix Democrats' Busted Primary. First, Andy Kroll's proposed remedies (in Rolling Stone), in black, then my reaction, in green.
Replace Iowa with Georgia
....Two-dozen presidential candidates building grassroots organizations and spending tens of millions of dollars on advertising [in 2024] will do wonders in Georgia.
Use my Neighborhood Forums idea, which provides candidates with voter feedback, debate experience, and media savvy, while also giving voters a close-up look at candidates, and a chance to winnow the field with non-binding voting. This in-person interaction substitutes for Iowa and New Hampshire, and thus allows the Democratic Party to choose the first states based on factors other than intimate size. So, Georgia, or even Illinois--the nation's most representative state (when income, education, race, religion, etc. are compared).
Get rid of the debates
....Candidates don’t have enough time to adequately explain their positions.... News organization... hosts...care more about conflict.... And in...2020, the DNC’s debate rules penalized grassroots candidates [and those] who didn’t have high name recognition. Save the debates until the general election. Stick with town halls or issue-focused forums....
Town halls usually involve a single candidate. Issue forums usually feature stale talking points. Debates are as close as we get to honest, real time reactions. And, debaters, with practice, get better and better at it, while incumbent presidents, along with any candidate lacking prior debate experience, will invariably stumble badly, when first entering the ring.
Reward states that make it easy to vote
....Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina — three of the four opening contests in 2020 — all have some of the most restrictive voting-rights laws in the country. ...Reward the states that use automatic or same-day registration, secure voting technology, early voting, and mail-in ballots.
This would be a good excuse to award 'first-in-the-nation' status to different states in 2024.
Demand candidates take a ‘Ban the Big Money’ pledge
....Democrats should demand that...primary candidates vow...to not... take money from Super PACs, use wealthy bundlers, or accept corporate money. Such a pledge would build trust with voters, give upstart candidates a fair shot, and make the Democratic Party responsive to...working people.
Using my Neighborhood Forums idea, this would work, since all viable candidates would receive exposure, and gain followers/resources, before the first primary. The general election would, of course, have to be different, unless all parties agree to limit the role of money.
[Discard the "turning out the base" versus "winning over swing voters" false choice]
...it will take a multiracial movement like the one that elected Obama in 2008 to inspire Democrats and independent voters alike.
The trick to effecting this is a sunny disposition, coupled with honest effort. Obama had them.
So, overall, I agree with all but one suggestion (the value of debates), and am neutral on another (base versus swing voters).
................
On this Presidents' Day 2020 let's examine primary season alternatives (Which states go first?, What role do dollar$ have in our elections?, and What about the debates?). To do this, we'll quote a recent article: How To Fix Democrats' Busted Primary. First, Andy Kroll's proposed remedies (in Rolling Stone), in black, then my reaction, in green.
Replace Iowa with Georgia
....Two-dozen presidential candidates building grassroots organizations and spending tens of millions of dollars on advertising [in 2024] will do wonders in Georgia.
Use my Neighborhood Forums idea, which provides candidates with voter feedback, debate experience, and media savvy, while also giving voters a close-up look at candidates, and a chance to winnow the field with non-binding voting. This in-person interaction substitutes for Iowa and New Hampshire, and thus allows the Democratic Party to choose the first states based on factors other than intimate size. So, Georgia, or even Illinois--the nation's most representative state (when income, education, race, religion, etc. are compared).
Get rid of the debates
....Candidates don’t have enough time to adequately explain their positions.... News organization... hosts...care more about conflict.... And in...2020, the DNC’s debate rules penalized grassroots candidates [and those] who didn’t have high name recognition. Save the debates until the general election. Stick with town halls or issue-focused forums....
Town halls usually involve a single candidate. Issue forums usually feature stale talking points. Debates are as close as we get to honest, real time reactions. And, debaters, with practice, get better and better at it, while incumbent presidents, along with any candidate lacking prior debate experience, will invariably stumble badly, when first entering the ring.
Reward states that make it easy to vote
....Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina — three of the four opening contests in 2020 — all have some of the most restrictive voting-rights laws in the country. ...Reward the states that use automatic or same-day registration, secure voting technology, early voting, and mail-in ballots.
This would be a good excuse to award 'first-in-the-nation' status to different states in 2024.
Demand candidates take a ‘Ban the Big Money’ pledge
....Democrats should demand that...primary candidates vow...to not... take money from Super PACs, use wealthy bundlers, or accept corporate money. Such a pledge would build trust with voters, give upstart candidates a fair shot, and make the Democratic Party responsive to...working people.
Using my Neighborhood Forums idea, this would work, since all viable candidates would receive exposure, and gain followers/resources, before the first primary. The general election would, of course, have to be different, unless all parties agree to limit the role of money.
[Discard the "turning out the base" versus "winning over swing voters" false choice]
...it will take a multiracial movement like the one that elected Obama in 2008 to inspire Democrats and independent voters alike.
The trick to effecting this is a sunny disposition, coupled with honest effort. Obama had them.
So, overall, I agree with all but one suggestion (the value of debates), and am neutral on another (base versus swing voters).
Friday, February 14, 2020
Klobuchar Or Mayor Pete?
#265: Who's Best At Persuasion?
..................
Why was Amy Klobuchar right to criticize Mayor Pete during the New Hampshire debate?
Here's what Buttigieg said at a campaign stop:
[Impeachment coverage] “makes me want to change the channel and watch cartoons.” The audience laughed, but he explained that this desire to turn away was the problem. “The cynics win,” said Buttigieg, “if they get us to switch it off.” Taken from a Slate article by Will Saletan.
Here's what Klobuchar said at the debate, two weeks later:
"We had a moment the last few weeks, mayor. And that moment was these impeachment hearings. And there was a lot of courage that you saw from only a few people. There was courage from Doug Jones, our friend from Alabama, who took that tough vote. There was courage from Mitt Romney, who took a very, very difficult vote. There was courage, as I read today, about Lt. Col. [Alexander] Vindman being escorted out of the White House. What he did took courage. But what you said, Pete, as you were campaigning through Iowa—as three of us were jurors in that impeachment hearing—you said it was exhausting to watch and that you wanted to turn the channel and watch cartoons. It is easy to go after Washington because that’s a popular thing to do. … It is much harder to lead.... We have a newcomer in the White House, and look where it got us."
The reason I think this is a legitimate point, and not distorting Mayor Pete's words, is that abetting cynicism ("makes me want to watch cartoons"), then pulling a 180 and making the opposite point, is a losing approach ("We all feel this way, right--go ahead and admit it, but we're wrong). It is, essentially, an ambush, that is grating ("You made me admit to error, then corrected me. I don't like that.) And of course Klobuchar couldn't say what I've just said in such detail. Instead of prose, she had to use a more general poetics.
The Klobuchar point:
1. Announces its 'frame':
"We had a moment (an opportunity to make a point), and that was Impeachment".
2. Makes its point:
"There was a lot of courage that you saw from only a few people. Or, we lost the battle, but in the end will have won.
3. Elaborates:
Her shout out to what really matters:
A. the winnable Senate races in conservative states
B. the support from friendly Republicans
C. the honoring of those who showed courage (mixing in a military title is perfect framing)
4. Summarizes:
"It is easy to go after Washington because that's a popular thing to do. It is much harder to lead."
5. Punchline:
"We have a newcomer in the White House, and look where it got us."
Klobuchar's delivery is a classic of composition that presents a difficult point to make, in a unified, purposeful, and accessible whole.
Buttigieg, meanwhile, bends to the temptation that every politician feels, in identifying with a popular sentiment, then finding himself correcting that temptation. Experienced leaders know not to head down that bend in the road to begin with.
And finally, what overcomes any hesitation about 'twisting words out of context' is that Mayor Pete's campaign has been all about how politicians in Washington haven't got a clue. So, he and his supporters probably did feel like turning the channel, but if they're wrong in wanting to do so, isn't Buttigieg on the wrong track, too?
..................
Why was Amy Klobuchar right to criticize Mayor Pete during the New Hampshire debate?
Here's what Buttigieg said at a campaign stop:
[Impeachment coverage] “makes me want to change the channel and watch cartoons.” The audience laughed, but he explained that this desire to turn away was the problem. “The cynics win,” said Buttigieg, “if they get us to switch it off.” Taken from a Slate article by Will Saletan.
Here's what Klobuchar said at the debate, two weeks later:
"We had a moment the last few weeks, mayor. And that moment was these impeachment hearings. And there was a lot of courage that you saw from only a few people. There was courage from Doug Jones, our friend from Alabama, who took that tough vote. There was courage from Mitt Romney, who took a very, very difficult vote. There was courage, as I read today, about Lt. Col. [Alexander] Vindman being escorted out of the White House. What he did took courage. But what you said, Pete, as you were campaigning through Iowa—as three of us were jurors in that impeachment hearing—you said it was exhausting to watch and that you wanted to turn the channel and watch cartoons. It is easy to go after Washington because that’s a popular thing to do. … It is much harder to lead.... We have a newcomer in the White House, and look where it got us."
The reason I think this is a legitimate point, and not distorting Mayor Pete's words, is that abetting cynicism ("makes me want to watch cartoons"), then pulling a 180 and making the opposite point, is a losing approach ("We all feel this way, right--go ahead and admit it, but we're wrong). It is, essentially, an ambush, that is grating ("You made me admit to error, then corrected me. I don't like that.) And of course Klobuchar couldn't say what I've just said in such detail. Instead of prose, she had to use a more general poetics.
The Klobuchar point:
1. Announces its 'frame':
"We had a moment (an opportunity to make a point), and that was Impeachment".
2. Makes its point:
"There was a lot of courage that you saw from only a few people. Or, we lost the battle, but in the end will have won.
3. Elaborates:
Her shout out to what really matters:
A. the winnable Senate races in conservative states
B. the support from friendly Republicans
C. the honoring of those who showed courage (mixing in a military title is perfect framing)
4. Summarizes:
"It is easy to go after Washington because that's a popular thing to do. It is much harder to lead."
5. Punchline:
"We have a newcomer in the White House, and look where it got us."
Klobuchar's delivery is a classic of composition that presents a difficult point to make, in a unified, purposeful, and accessible whole.
Buttigieg, meanwhile, bends to the temptation that every politician feels, in identifying with a popular sentiment, then finding himself correcting that temptation. Experienced leaders know not to head down that bend in the road to begin with.
And finally, what overcomes any hesitation about 'twisting words out of context' is that Mayor Pete's campaign has been all about how politicians in Washington haven't got a clue. So, he and his supporters probably did feel like turning the channel, but if they're wrong in wanting to do so, isn't Buttigieg on the wrong track, too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)