A time for courage and for antacids

The Thinker by Rodin

Five months from today we are likely to wake up and find that Joe Biden is our president elect. Donald Trump’s reelection seems increasingly unlikely, given that many polls now show Biden has a ten-point lead over Trump. Or maybe we won’t know. One factor in this election is that there may be a crush of absentee ballots that will take days to tabulate. But hopefully we are less than five months away before we can begin to return to some semblance of normalcy.

But can anything go back to normal after such a disruptive president as Donald Trump? Trump has been our gorilla in the china shop president, gleeful in breaking norms and rules. Given his advanced case of narcissism, as I speculated in an earlier post, he is unlikely to go quietly. In fact, he will go kicking and screaming, and will do his best to initiate a fascist state before then.

This week’s events alarmed most of us, which were preceded by last week’s alarming events with the death of George Floyd, unquestionably murdered by three officers of the Minneapolis police. You can watch all 8:46 seconds of it online, if you have the stomach for it. The murder caused predictable demonstrations followed by some looting and violence. Never one to miss an opportunity, Trump used the event to move us more dangerously close to fascism. He threatened to deploy active duty troops wherever needed, supposedly to restore order. There is a law called Posse Comitatus that prohibits just this, but of course Trump never seems to be concerned about his law breaking. He may use the Insurrection Act instead which other presidents have used, for example, to force integration in Alabama public schools but which most scholars agree is out of line for these events.

Chances are if it is even a fig leaf excuse, he will use it, which suggests dark days ahead. It was brought out on Monday when he ordered the Secret Service and Park Police to clear Lafayette Square of protestors who were peacefully demonstrating, all in order to stage a photo op in front of nearby St. John’s Church holding a Bible held upside down. To show what a man he was, the forces used tear gas, rubber bullets and a dangerously low helicopter hovering over protestors.

Clearly Trump hasn’t read the Bible, but even if he were a Christian he wouldn’t be the first Christian to ignore Jesus’s advice to turn the other cheek. In pursuit of the Christian evangelical voters, his forces also pushed out a pastor of the church. All this was made much worse because the order apparently given by our Attorney General supplicant Bill Barr and endorsed by our Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. Esper later seemed to walk remarks that active duty troops should be used to quell unrest.

The next day Trump engaged in another obscenity by staging himself next to a statue of Pope John Paul II, who must be turning in his grave in the Vatican. Meanwhile, protests continue. Even our little city of Northampton, Massachusetts had more than a thousand people protested in front of the police department. Our chief of police took a knee with protestors. A huge dance is underway nationally and there’s really no way to know how this will all turn out. For most of us with a lick of common sense, we know it’s likely to get much worse, not better.

Trump is feeling the heat, of course, but all he knows how to do is double down. None of this actually helps him get reelected, so it’s counterproductive. He and the Republican Party are hoping with enough voter suppression they will eke out a win somehow. Trump didn’t win in 2016 with his base; he just managed to convince enough other voters in a few swing states (just 80,000) to pull off his unlikely victory. To win he will have to persuade more than his base, but it’s clear he won’t bother. From the day of his election he’s believed that he can win reelection with just his base, which is slowly diminishing.

All this plus a COVID-19 pandemic. It has officially caused more than 100,000 deaths in the United States. Just his handling (or rather lack of handling) of that is enough to doom his reelection, but it only gets worse from here on. A country that has five percent of the population and 30% of its deaths is obviously doing things catastrophically wrong. A twenty percent unemployment rate won’t help either. As the deaths mount up, it will just shrink his base, which are disproportionately old and white. Many seniors seem to have woken up and Biden now leads among them, perhaps because the sense Trump would go after Social Security and Medicare if reelected.

But of course the election won’t matter if you can neatly create a dictatorship before then. Trump realizes he can’t stop the election and he is likely to lose it, but that doesn’t mean he can’t claim it was rigged and see if he can use the armed forces to ensure that he retains power. He seems to be doing all the things that wannabee dictators are doing, just ineptly. It remains to be seen whether the military would be true to the people or Trump. It sure looks like these demonstrations are being used by Trump to see what he can get away with.

In any event, if you’re not having trouble sleeping and you aren’t reaching for the antacids, you should be. There are some signs of hope, but it’s hard to know how much to read into them. George W. Bush, for example, spoke up for protestors without actually criticizing Donald Trump. Any Republicans left who are looking for cover for mildly rebuking Trump can site Bush. Barack Obama doesn’t seem to be staying on the sidelines either. We haven’t heard from our only other living ex-president, Bill Clinton, but hopefully he will pile on the criticism too.

None of this is likely to matter to Trump, but it is likely that whatever he attempts he may find himself hastily walking back. It may be that his ever-expanding line of privilege will finally make too many key Republicans turn against him. A bully’s power is actually very fragile. Republicans may be already sensing the electoral disaster likely to take many of them out now less than five months away. Some may be more scared of being voted out of office than hanging with a losing Trump.

As screwy as today’s events are, I know in my gut that the time between Trump’s defeat and the inauguration of his likely successor will be the most dangerous time for our country since the Civil War, or perhaps in our country’s entire history. It’s time to stock up on the antacids. It’s also time for many of us to show the backbone we haven’t, particularly many people of privilege, i.e. white and moneyed guys like me. This likely won’t be solved at the ballot box, or by liking someone’s tweets, but by uncomfortably personal, face-to-face, civic engagement likely happening tonight in a city near you.

Donald Trump and the Republican Party are trying to kill you

The Thinker by Rodin

No, really. Donald Trump may not actually want you specifically dead (at least, if he hasn’t Tweeted your name), but that seems to be the effect of his words and actions.

Strangely, those he wants to kill the most seem to be his most loyal supporters. Maybe he doesn’t actually want a second term? If so, I suspect his psychoses won’t let him admit it to himself, so maybe he’s acting on a subconscious level.

But he must understand at some level that he’s unlikely to win reelection, even when he and his Republican cronies pull out all the voter disenfranchisement stops. It’s too big for anyone to rig because our voting system is too decentralized. Oh, I’m sure some will try. The Russians are probably targeting the election systems of swing states. Such attempts are likely to be uncovered, as most states routinely audit paper ballots against electronic records. With the likely unemployment rate come election likely in the teens, or higher, both he and his party are likely to lose massively.

Hitler chose suicide for he and Eva. Trump may be choosing it for his most loyal supporters. For example, Trump wants you to know he’s taking hydroxychloriquine, although it sounds like he plans to stop taking it soon. Trump is such a massive liar that if he’s getting it at all, most likely the pills are going down the toilet. Following Trump’s advice doesn’t sound good if you value your life because today’s Washington Post reports its linked to increased risk of death for those with COVID-19.

Sudden cardiac death though is not a bad way to go, if you have to go, and for Trump the death of his supporters may be preferable to the shame of defeat. And if it’s likely to fell anyone, it’s likely to fell Donald Trump. He has most of the risk factors: advanced age and other underlying medical conditions including his obesity. In addition to killing him and many of his supporters, also disproportionately older and obese, it might kill some of those who actually depend on the drug to control lupus but can’t get it, due to Trump’s promotion of it. One possible reason he’s hyping it: he may have a financial interest in its supplier. Or it could be he just wants you dead. We know of at least one documented case where it did.

Or maybe you should consider other treatments the president recommends or is wondering about. So far I haven’t heard of anyone trying to ingest Clorox or figuring out a way to get a suntan from the inside, as Trump mused about at one of his task force meetings. It wouldn’t take much Clorox to kill you, and even less to severely injure you. It’s also a pretty fast way to go, but doesn’t sound too pleasant. People prefer to commit suicide by gunshot wound or jumping off of building; dying by drinking Clorox sounds particularly unpleasant. I don’t think it’s possible to give you ultraviolet radiation inside your skin, not without peeling a whole lot of it back with a scalpel, which might kill you by itself from the massive bleeding or resulting infections.

I have to wonder what someone ten years ago reading this would say to themselves: WTF? No one ten years ago would believe we would elect as president anyone stupid enough to advocate any of this stuff. Ten years, even Republicans would be first to say any such “president” should be removed, or at least 25th amendment-ed. But if Trump’s base is around forty percent of us, I have to assume that many of us figure it’s okay, but perhaps only if Trump says it’s okay. Hopefully most of them won’t actually try it, but I’m guessing some of these same Trump supporters thinking COVID-19 is all fake news and are busy rubbing shoulders with strangers on beaches would probably drink some of this latest Jim Jones version of KoolAid.

But it’s not just Trump that wants to kill you. It’s the whole Republican Party. Republicans in general though are less explicit about it, just not as much as you might think. Texas’s lieutenant governor Dan Patrick was one of the first ones to say, heck, I’d be first to get in line to die if it meant that my grandchildren could keep living the American Dream. Strangely though no one has seen Dan Patrick volunteer to up his odds. I have to think he’s hoping that you will die for the Republican Party instead. Why? Because they are the Party of Life, I guess.

But there are plenty of other more subtle ways to kill you. For example, by loosening the air quality standards. This has the advantage of not just killing Republicans, but disproportionately more of the people they really hate, which is broadly anyone who is poor and not white, or either. Asthma seems to disproportionately hit African Americans, but really anyone whose idea of affordable housing requires living near petrochemical plants or in dense, urban neighborhoods is a good candidate for death via asthma.

So whether overtly, covertly or unintentionally, it all amounts to the same thing. Donald Trump and Republicans in general want you dead. And if not dead, then at least have the courtesy not to vote. They’ll do their best to keep you from doing it.

Praise Jesus!

The Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary have been demoted

The Thinker by Rodin

The 2020 Democratic nomination process pulled a surprise this year. It showed that doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire probably doesn’t matter anymore.

Doing well in Iowa has been a great predictor of eventually winning the Democratic Party nomination. With the exception of 1992 when their incumbent senator was in the primary, banking Iowa proved to be the momentum that carried over to the nomination. Iowa sends only 41 delegates to the national convention, out of 3979 pledged delegates. That’s about one percent of pledged delegates. New Hampshire’s track record of being the first primary state is much worse than Iowa’s, but it picks only 24 delegates. Nonetheless, until now, it’s been an easy decision to decide to invest heavily in Iowa’s caucus and the New Hampshire primary as well. They set a candidate’s narrative on their eventual electability.

Biden won only six of Iowa’s 41 delegates and no delegates in New Hampshire. Yet he’s going to win the nomination in a landslide. What went wrong?

South Carolina went wrong, or perhaps right. Biden won 39 of its 54 delegates there. South Carolina Democrats of course are mostly African American voters. This time around, South Carolina set the narrative on who the nominee would be, surprising pretty much everyone, including the Biden campaign. Biden won ten of the 15 Super Tuesday states, held just four days later. South Carolina effectively set the narrative this time around, and African Americans showed and have emerged as the Democratic Party’s principle power broker.

The lesson from this should be obvious: if you want to be president, you should spent a whole lot of time and resources in South Carolina and a whole lot less in Iowa and New Hampshire. And if you want to win South Carolina, not only do you need to spend a lot of time there; you need to invest much of your political career to working on issues that African Americans care about. Also, those who discount the savvy of African American voters do so at their peril.

Biden was assumed to be the front-runner before any voting started. Polls generally gave him the edge. It’s just that many of us didn’t believe the polls. Joe looked bland and tired, and we found it much easier to be enthused about progressive candidates. I was enthused about Elizabeth Warren. I still am; she’s just out of the race now. So many progressives like me were hoping to convince principally non-white voters to vote for our favorite, but the biggest voting bloc in the party decided they wanted pragmatic Joe instead of ideological Elizabeth or Bernie.

Biden did it despite the plethora of mainstream candidates that included Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris and Mike Bloomberg. He did it on a shoestring budget. While early and principally white voters found things to like about these candidates, the party’s African American bloc did not. They signaled to other minorities that form what is now arguably the core of the Democratic Party who they should vote for. And primary voters listened, trusting their instincts more than the traditional white base of the party.

This election’s primary process then seems to suggest a new era for the Democratic Party: as the party principally of African Americans and other minorities. This leaves progressive whites in an awkward place because we seem to vote disproportionately for progressive white candidates. A few will cross party lines and vote for Republicans and Trump instead, but most of us will have to rethink the optics of our voting choice. We need to realize that our power and influence in the party is diluted and is likely to remain this way in 2024 and beyond, and that minorities are the party’s new majority.

November’s election should be a blowout for Democrats

The Thinker by Rodin

Like most 2016 election prognosticators, I blew it. I accepted conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton would win. It sure looked that way from the polls. I blew it but most of us did as well. We didn’t understand the extent of Russian election interference; or the impact of former FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that the FBI would be taking another look through her emails; and the misogyny factor which was hard to quantify, but was real enough. I also discounted how badly an unpopular candidate (Clinton) would fare, along with general desire of voters to switch things up after eight years. I also assumed most voters could see through the fraud that Trump was. Maybe many of them did, just didn’t care.

So my suggesting that Democrats will do very well on November 3 should be taken with a ton of salt. One reason is because it’s unclear whether an election could be held and if held, held fairly. There hasn’t been a fair national election in a very long time, simply because of rampant voter suppression in many red states. So I can’t assume this election will be any different; in fact it’s likely to be worse than 2016.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden thinks Trump will try to find a way to delay the election. I don’t think so; this would take an act of Congress and with power split in Congress I can’t see it happening. It’s not hard to imagine it taking place in the midst of a next COVID-19 wave.

Southern states will probably try to imitate Wisconsin and do away with mail-in voting as much as possible. The strategy didn’t work so well in Wisconsin’s latest election, which put a liberal justice on the state’s supreme court by about a ten-point margin. If there is another wave of the virus around election time, seniors are the most likely to stay home, as they have the most to lose. It’s likely to be counterproductive.

Still, it’s not hard to predict that Joe Biden should have a winning night, and will sweep in a large wave of Democrats with him. Here are some of my reasons for thinking this:

  • The COVID-19 epidemic is unlikely to get better. It’s likely to plateau at some point, but we can’t expect it to go away completely over the next few months. We’ll most likely see a resurgence in the summer or fall. Epidemiologists suggest that will be worse than this initial wave, and include a wave of flu-related deaths as well.
  • There has been virtually nothing the Trump administration has done to adapt to the pandemic. There is still nothing resembling mass testing. Whatever is done is done chaotically and way too late. Trump could not have done a worse job managing this, and as the death rate grows he can’t talk his way out of his bumbling incompetence.
  • The economy will still be in tatters, with the unemployment rate likely in the teens at best. The state of the economy is generally the best predictor about whether an incumbent gets reelected. But it won’t be just Trump who owns the economy, it will be all those in charge, mostly Republicans. House Democrats can point to legislation they introduced that is much more generous to working people. Voters will understand clearly who is on their side.
  • The factors that worked for Trump in 2016 will probably work against him this time. Misogyny and racism aren’t likely to be a factor in the presidential race, unless it’s against Biden’s VP pick.
  • Our conservative Supreme Court seems itching to overturn the Affordable Care Act, which will come at the worst possible time if it happens: just before an election. It’s possible it will do the same with overturning Roe v. Wade, a decision that is still widely supported by a majority of Americans.
  • In 2016, there were a lot of non-identified secret Trump voters; too embarrassed I think to tell pollsters they were going to vote for him. I think it will be just the opposite this time. Trump voters won’t admit they won’t vote for him, as that would be embarrassing to admit. But it’s in their best interest to vote against him. Mostly they will vote for whoever is likelier to improve their economic situation, which should still be pretty dire toward the end of the year.
  • The polls are already not looking good. At worst Biden has about a six-point lead nationally, but he’s polling ahead of Trump in key swing states like Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin that he must win. It looks likely that Trump will lose Arizona, possibly moving it into the purple state category.
  • We’ve going through a significant emotional event. As best I can tell this was coined by the sociologist Morris Massey. The basic thesis is to truly change behavior; it has to have a huge emotional impact. Twenty percent unemployment, worrying about losing your housing, bread lines, being unable to pay your doctor bills and watching people you know die unnecessarily from a virus should more than qualify. It worked during the Great Depression, and we may be in its redux by the time November rolls around.
  • The general trend since 2016 is that Democrats have been on a winning streak, and Republicans have been playing a rather poor defensive game. Where they have won, it’s mostly been through cheating, such as the Georgia governor’s race.
  • Seniors are turning against Trump, and they’ve been his most loyal voting block. They can identify with Middle Class Joe Biden. He looks nice and white, has a winning smile and seems relatable. Also, crazy and erratic tempers are no longer in.
  • Demographics: boomers like me are starting to die off, and COVID-19 will accelerate the trend. In any event, those of us who are retired certainly don’t want our safety net collapsed, but Trump seems to be doing everything possible to collapse it. There’s got to be a lot of buyer’s remorse out there.

Of course wishing won’t make it so, so to preclude the possibility activists like me will be working hard to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Republicans will still probably outspend Democrats, but there aren’t that many persuadable voters out there. Trump has no record of accomplishments to run on. The carnage of his self-dealing and mal-administration is obvious and inescapable. Likely there will be many wild moments during the campaign, but I don’t see how Trump or Republicans can turn this around.

I expect a Democrat in the White House in January, and a Democratic Congress as well.

It’s likely to be a crazy 2020

The Thinker by Rodin

In case you haven’t noticed it, were in the midst of Future Shock.

Fifty years ago, Alvin Toffler wrote the book of the same name warning us that a cavalcade of forces were coming together that were likely to make our future a confusing and frightening mess. Future shock is basically the effects if too much change coming at society too quickly.

It’s painfully clear from the last few decades that we are winging this future shock thing. No one has really figured out how to deal with what we’ve unleashed, but there it all is in all its chaos and messiness, so we have no choice but to figure out how best to deal with it somehow. In our new decade, it’s likelier to get worse and get messier.

You might say the Trump Administration started the year off with a bang, by killing Iran’s special forces commander Qasem Soleimani in Iraq with a drone strike near Baghdad’s airport. Presumably this was in retaliation for the attack on our embassy in Baghdad’s Green Zone, which seems to have been helped by Iranian forces in Iraq.

As usual, Trump didn’t bother to inform Congress of his planned actions, even though the law requires it. If Trump were smart enough to be diabolical, one might envision a strategy behind this. Based on what the polls tell us so far, he’s unlikely to survive reelection, even with all the voter suppression and election hijinks going on. So wars can be convenient if you can rally a nation behind them.

Some of us with longer memories remember how this all began: when President Bush unwisely invaded Iraq in 2003. Hundreds of thousands of lives and about a trillion dollars later, our latest headstrong president seems to be willing to follow the script that got Bush reelected in 2004. Without that horrendously bad and unnecessary war, yesterday’s killing probably would never have happened. It’s not even clear if Iran would still be our enemy.

So expect a lot more tit-for-tat now, but whether it can be deescalated at some point is problematic. A lot of Americans really have no idea why we should hate Iran anyhow. There are plenty of reasons why Iranians should hate us. We overturned its system of government twice and led many embargoes and other actions against the country over the decades. It’s true that to some extent they sponsor international terrorism, but plenty of other countries do too and anyhow so far they haven’t directed it at us. Iran is not nearly as evil as North Korea, and yet Trump told us he “fell in love” with its dictator Kim Jong Un. In general, Trump seems to love dictators. But perhaps he doesn’t like Iran because it’s not dictatorial enough. They do have a real legislature, after all, although its decisions can be overruled by their Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Their legislature may be more fairly representative than ours.

Anyhow, this killing is not a good omen, so we may look back on 2019 with some nostalgia. Our 2020 election, no matter how you look at it, will be bad. If Trump wins reelection, that obviously will be bad: he’ll have four years to govern with impunity because Congress will refuse to check him. If he loses, Democrats win, and Democrats take Congress, Trump probably will say the election was rigged against him, will refuse to concede, barricade himself in the White House and bring on a constitutional crisis that way. His supporters are already threatening civil war if he is impeached and removed – how democratic of them! But Trump has never been about democracy, he’s about authoritarianism. In short, November 3 is likely to be the most momentous day in our history since the real Civil War began, and might spark a new one. Happy New Year!

Meanwhile, we’ll probably look back on Trump’s 2017-2019 presidency as the good old days. His tweets get more numerous, threatening and blacker every day. His lying increases at exponential levels. Trump is scared of accountability, so he will pull all stops to get reelected and it’s likely his party will aid and abet him. We probably can’t count on the courts to help us, certainly not after Citizens United. Trump’s inevitable Senate trial will result in a partisan exoneration which of course he will tout endlessly.

I can take some schadenfreude perhaps in Trump’s misery, except that we cannot escape his misery: he inflicts it on everyone. My hope, such as it is, is that Trump’s ungluing conveniently coincides with an illness that makes it impossible for him to govern. I am absolutely convinced that he won’t live to complete a second term, and his obvious physical and mental issues may not allow him to complete a campaign. If he is nominated by the Republicans and he dies or becomes incapacitated, could Republicans still nominate anyone in time to field in an election? Laws will vary by state but that in itself could become a huge constitutional crisis.

We know that Trump is quite ill. The mental illness should be obvious, but he is also physically ill. Trump has heart disease, which means he has a moderate risk of a heart attack in the next three to 5 years. His mother and sister died of Huntington’s Disease, whose earliest symptoms are often subtle problems with mood or mental abilities. He’s likely got dementia. His father died from the same thing that killed my mother: Progressive Supranuclear Palsy, but also frontotemporal dementia. His recent “lab work” at Walter Reed coincided with him taking the back stairs out of Air Force One and having a White House physician accompany him, not just on trips, but in the presidential limousine.

So buckle up, mates. 2020 is going to be crazy. Let’s just hope that 2021 will be less so.

Election 2019 postmortem

The Thinker by Rodin

What can you really glean from an odd year election?

Quite a lot, but mainly that Republicans are going to have a hard time holding onto power next November. Consider:

  • A Democrat won the governorship in Kentucky, a state that went for Trump by thirty points in 2016. Kentucky is one of the reddest of red states, but it had one of the worst governors ever: Matt Bevin, an ultra tea partier who railed against one of the few things Republicans and Democrats can agree on: public school teachers and the need to compensate them adequately. Bevin was every bit as nasty as Donald Trump, just less inept. He tied himself closely to Trump, who rallied for him, yet he still lost, albeit narrowly.
  • Virginia went blue. Not purple, blue. Entirely blue. Democrats will control both chambers of the state legislature, the governorship, lieutenant governorship and the attorney general’s position. They also control both U.S. Senate seats and seven of its 11 congressional seats. Virginia is now a blue state, and likely to stay that way unless Democrats screw up monumentally. The inexorable increases in population in its suburbs and exurbs, mostly talented and ethnically diverse people from elsewhere, aren’t going to go away. It’s as blue as Maryland now, and some day may be bluer. Republicans haven’t won a statewide office since 2009 and without some terrible Democratic candidates the prospects for winning one look bleak. You can pretty much assign Virginia’s electoral votes to the Democratic candidate for the indefinite future. And speaking of which, Democrats will be drawing congressional districts in 2021. Any gerrymandering that happens won’t help Republicans.
  • If Trump hopes to win Pennsylvania again, it’s a fool’s hope. The outer suburban counties around Philadelphia, historically deeply Republican, swung dramatically blue. The Delaware County Council is now not just majority Democrat for the first time in anyone’s living memory, but Democrats controls all its seats. All four Republicans running for the judgeships on the Common Pleas Court lost too. In the even more traditionally Republican Bucks County, Democrats won control of the county council.

There is one minor anecdotal win too delicious not to share:

A legion of reasons propel political neophytes to run for office, but none may be as unusual as what inspired Juli Briskman, the cyclist who gave President Trump the finger two years ago and found herself without a job and at the center of a national uproar.

On Tuesday, Briskman got a new job, winning a seat on the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors — ousting a Republican in the process.

Briskman now represents the district holding one of Trump’s golf clubs.

All this gives some credence to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll that finds if an election were held today, pretty much any Democratic candidate would trump Trump by double digits.

Obviously, we are a year out from the presidential election and lots of things could change. One thing that doesn’t seem to change is Donald Trump. Every week he gets wackier and seems more unhinged. His impeachment and the open testimony to be given starting next week will keep him in the news, but you can count on his Twitter feed to do that anyhow. The Senate is still likely to acquit Trump, but any Republican that does is likely to pay a political price.

All this momentum suggests that the Senate is likely to flip blue next year too, despite odds that should favor the Republicans. If Kentucky can elect a Democratic governor in a state won so decisively by Trump, there’s going to be a lot of carnage in red and purple states. One of these may be Senator Mitch McConnell, whose favorability ratings in his own state are half those of Donald Trump’s nationally.

Trump is plainly toxic to Republicans, but they can’t disassociate themselves with him. Those that do get ejected from the party. These incumbents main concern is to get through a primary. Afterward they may find it convenient to distance themselves from Trump a bit to attract the swing voters they may need to hold onto their jobs.

It’s unlikely Trump will let them. Trump’s assumption is that he can win with his base. But that’s not how he got elected. He certainly had an enthusiastic base, but he also brought over many independents. Current polling suggests independents will break nearly two for one for a Democratic candidate for president. He eked out a victory in 2016 but he won’t have these coalitions again in 2020. Well, not unless he morphs into something he is not: more moderate, even tempered and statesman-like. When you are convinced of your own infallibility, there is no need to change strategies.

I say throw Trump an anvil. Let’s encourage him to have more frequent rallies. He probably will anyhow, as it’s one of the few things that he enjoys. Since most Republicans are going to be tethered to him whether they like it or not, many of them will go down with him. The sooner he and Trumpism disappear, the better for our country.

Letting Trump be Trump (not that we have a choice) is just what Democrats need to win next year.

Who is going to be our next president?

The Thinker by Rodin

Who knows? At this point it’s probably easier to say who it won’t be. That likely includes any Democrat polling at under ten percent nationally. That almost certainly includes any of Trump’s Republican challengers on a quixotic quest to convince Republicans he’s the loser he is, since about ninety percent of them love Donald Trump. There is always the possibility of a great Trump implosion. It’s been long underway; it just doesn’t seem to make any difference. As I noted recently, there’s no bottom for Republicans.

Anyhow, sorry Kamala Harris, Corrie Booker and even Pete Buttigieg, who curiously raised the most money of any Democratic candidate last quarter. Mayor Pete though may be going for the consolation prize: being on the eventual Democratic nominee’s ticket. Not bad for the mayor of a city of only 100,000 people.

Will it be Joe Biden, the current presumptive Democratic frontrunner? If history is any judge, probably not. The odds favor whoever wins the Iowa caucuses. You have to go back to 1992 to find a case where the Democratic nominee did not first win in Iowa. That was because Tom Harkin was running and he was Iowa’s senator. He got 76% of the vote; Bill Clinton got just 3%. New Hampshire’s primary is hardly a bellwether; it’s more often wrong than not at calling the Democratic Party’s eventual nominee.

Polls will doubtless be all over the place between now and February’s Iowa caucuses. The Des Moines Register hasn’t polled the state since June when Biden had a comfortable lead. It will be interesting to see their next poll, since theirs in typically the most valid. Generally though the candidate with the most enthusiastic supporters is the one who ultimately wins, since they show up on caucus night. You have to look hard for Biden enthusiasts. If I had to pick a winner of that primary, it’s most likely to be Elizabeth Warren. At least, that’s the sense I’m gleaning from reporters following her around: she generates the most enthusiasm and highest crowd sizes.

The Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary have the effect of quickly winnowing the field. They also perversely assure that white Democrats get an oversize ability to help pick the eventual nominee. Is this racism? It wasn’t intended that way, as it was set up at a time when our country was overwhelmingly white but today it looks racist. Multicultural Nevada now rings in third, with its caucus on February 22. After Super Tuesday on March 3, which now includes California, we’ll probably know with 80 percent probability who the Democrats nominee will be: whoever has racked up the highest delegate count. Barack Obama was the exception, although he did win in Iowa in 2008.

I don’t think the Democrats are going to nominate Joe Biden. It’s not just because of his gaffes and his tepid support. It’s because if you add up the polling for the other progressive candidates, they trounce him. As candidates drop out, it’s unlikely that those supporting progressives will realign behind Joe Biden. They are more likely to align behind Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders instead.

Warren probably has more enthusiastic supporters, plus Sanders is a known and older commodity. So I think the omens look quite good for Warren, who also happens to be my choice at the moment. Warren has been steadily creeping up in polls.

Democrats would be wise to nominate someone they are actually enthusiastic about voting for. That won’t be Joe. What brings out Democrats in droves on Election Day is someone new and different. Unfortunately, what they often get instead is someone tried, true and tired but favored by party insiders. Their candidate should be someone with good favorability ratings, particularly among independents. Currently, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders qualify. This will change. Biden’s are declining while Warren’s are rising. Many candidates have underwater favorability ratings solely because most voters don’t yet know who they are.

I’m rooting for Warren and have been giving her $50 a month for many months now. After people really listen to her, they tend to like her. She seems relatable in a way few Democratic candidates are. I’m betting that she wins the nomination and I hope the election too. If she does, I will definitely enjoy watching her debates with Donald Trump. Trump will never know what hit him.

Attention Liz Warren: here’s my killer campaign idea

The Thinker by Rodin

I’ve been having a hard time getting a hold of Liz Warren, my senator and my preferred presidential candidate. She has had no trouble getting a hold of me because I’ve donated twice to her presidential campaign. Pretty much every day she (or rather her campaign) is hitting me up for more money. So far I’ve given her $100.

I’ve also tried to give her a really good idea. Replying to her many automated emails doesn’t work. Crawling her website, I did find a contact form. I first vetted my idea with my friend Tom, who works in advertising. He thinks my idea is good one, but advised that campaigns are pretty insular so they probably wouldn’t pay attention to any unsolicited suggestions. Why? First, they tend to have ad teams that do most of the media strategy and they are pretty insular and know best, unlike us unwashed masses. Second, campaigns tend to be overloaded and constantly play triage. Anything I send in as a comment goes to the bottom of the barrel, probably never to be read. I did look for a phone number that I could call, but one simply doesn’t exist.

Heeding Tom’s advice I sent a short note on their comment saying I wanted fifteen minutes of someone’s time and no I wasn’t trying to make any money. It didn’t have to be at the national level. Let me talk to someone running her campaign here in Massachusetts and if they like it they can pass it up the food chain. It’s true I didn’t say what my idea is. I don’t want them to reject it out of hand. But I will tell you and I’ll post and link to this post this on the campaign’s Facebook page. But I have a feeling it will linger there too, unread. If you like my idea, please promote it and share it. Then maybe someone will actually consider it.

Liz is my favorite for reasons I wrote about in this post. At the moment though she is just one of 23 Democrats who have announced they would like to be our next president. The good news for Liz is that she is at least in the top tier, or was before Joe Biden got into the race. She was in the #2 spot in a number of polls, but usually polls third or fourth.

Given that Liz is just 1 of 23, the challenge becomes for a candidate to distinguish themselves in a memorable way that can’t be forgotten, will command national attention and generate lots of dialogue. But how?

Like my most recent nightmare, this came to me in the middle of the night: 2 AM to be specific. This one though I could not shake. I never really got back to sleep. The next day I wrote it down and sent it off to Tom, thinking that 2 AM ideas are inherently suspicious.

Strangely, it all went back to my time in parochial schools. I spent ten years in their system. For eight of them (elementary school) the good sisters had a hard time getting our attention, particularly when recess was over. The solution: a big, loud, brass hand bell.

It was the idea of the bell that I could not shake. You cannot not hear a bell; it commands attention. And that’s what all candidates want: attention. The idea was for Liz to literally use a hand bell in her campaign and in her advertising to distinguish herself but also to rally America to the huge task ahead.

Imagine that Liz brings a hand bell to one of these to her major rallies. (Make sure there is plenty of media on hand.) Imagine if she kept it under a small box next to the lectern. As the crowd gets riled up and she moves toward the close of the rally, she raises her voice and says something like, “My friends, the status quo is simply unacceptable. Things must change!” Then she lifts the box and reveals the bell. “And so we ring this bell for change!” And she starts clanging it. People start cheering. “We are ringing this bell for future generations, so they can live on a green and peaceful earth again!” She rings the bell. “We are ringing this bell so women can have the right to make decisions about their own bodies again!” She rings the bell again and does the same for other prominent issues that must be addressed. “We are ringing this bell to restore government of the people, by the people, and for the people again!” Lots of bell ringing. Crowds cheer.

Tie this into an ad campaign. Show a student on the ground in front of Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, where alleged gunman Nikolas Cruz killed seventeen students and injured 17 others. There are tears in her eyes as she rings a small bell of mourning. Cut to similar scenes, like one with someone in front of a black church that was recently burned down in Louisiana. More snippets on this theme with crowds growing larger and the bells growing more intense, less mournful and more hopeful, not to mention louder. Cut to Liz at a campaign rally ringing her bell and her theme, something like: “Together, we are going to make America America again!”

Liz is the only candidate I can think of that can pull this off. But even so, it will have to be done deftly. Liz has a tendency to smile goofily sometimes. Not when ringing the bell, however. This will need to be practiced privately until she’s got the act down just right.

If it’s done right, I think it could be devastatingly effective. The bell could serve as a rallying cry and theme for the campaign. Like all good campaigns, to persuade voters it must make an emotional connection plus provides imagery and an sound and urgency that cannot be unheard. It has to hit voters on many levels simultaneously.

Ringing of bells could become features at all her rallies. People with hand bells could ring them in front of Congress, or the statehouse in Alabama, or any place where they need to be heard. It symbolizes the change that is needed and will be coming in 2020.

Liz, you gotta ring that bell!

Liz Warren for president

The Thinker by Rodin

I recently wrote a post saying Democrats should concentrate on bigger issues like fixing gerrymandering rather than get swept up in the personalities over the many, many candidates running for the party’s presidential nomination. That’s not to say that the field so far is not full of interesting and exciting candidates. Yes, any of them would be more than acceptable as a nominee.

In 2016, I was a Bernie supporter. I correctly assessed Hillary Clinton’s major problem: she wasn’t likeable and was a poor campaigner. I incurred the wrath of many including my wife who despite liking his policies can’t stand Bernie. I’m not sure why this is. It could be that he’s a man, or is white, or since he comes from Vermont can’t seem to relate well to people of color. She’s still anti-Bernie although she concedes she would vote for him in a heartbeat over Trump or any third party ticket. At this early stage, Sanders appears to be something of a favorite in a very divided field.

Yes, I like pretty much all of them with a few exceptions. I’m not sold on Cory Booker because he’s voted like a corporatist for much of his senate career. Ditto for Tulsi Gabbard who is even more so. There are bunches that are technically running that seem to be on nobody’s radar: John Delaney, John Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee, Wayne Messam and Tim Ryan. I bet most of you can’t even say who these people are and what offices they currently hold. Maybe they will distinguish themselves between now and the first votes but there is no particular buzz around any of these candidates. The bigger ones currently running of course are Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg (a true come from nowhere candidate), Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

While any of them would be acceptable to me, as I ponder them in my mind I keep coming back to one candidate who is my heads on favorite in this crowded field: Elizabeth Warren. All candidates have strengths and minuses. Warren’s minuses are pretty well known, but are trivial. But as a potential president, she’s whom I would most like to next see in the Oval Office.

She also happens to be my senator, but I’ve admired her long before we moved to Massachusetts in 2015. Unlike all the other candidates with the exception of Bernie Sanders, Liz has the fire of commitment in her belly. But unlike Bernie Sanders, she understands the importance of policy, and her sets of policies are well thought out and address the root causes of the many issues facing our country. What you really notice though that truly sets her apart from other candidates is that she is egoless. You don’t hear from her that “only I can do this”, like you would from Donald Trump or many politicians. What you hear is an exposition on what the fundamental problems for our nation are and how she would fix things.

Fixing things is her passion. It’s what gets her up in the morning. And that’s what we need: a fixer, someone with determination, passion and persistence to move all levers of government to fix the fundamental problems with our governance. And what she correctly identifies as the most fundamental problem of all: getting corruption out of government. That is the one thing she would work on with the most energy because she realizes that all other things, including having a livable planet, depend on getting corruption out of government. Government must work for the people again, not the rich.

Listening to her, you so plainly hear this passion. It feels 100% real instead of faked. Moreover, we residents of Massachusetts see it from her every day. She lives it. She has never accepted a dime from corporate PACs. Her whole presidential effort is being run on a shoestring, depending on supporters to sustain her campaign. So if you want someone to change things, why not support someone who has given their all to do exactly this?

Why am I less enthusiastic about Bernie Sanders? It’s not that he and Elizabeth Warren vary that much on their positions and solutions. Bernie too knows what must be done and has the fire in his belly. What Bernie doesn’t have is Warren’s deep policy expertise. Warren knows not just how things connect and what levers to move to exact change, but comprehensively understands the steps to get there and how to do the work. This is because for much of her life she has been a policy wonk, which Bernie has not been. Having a vision for what America should be is of little use if you cannot connect the dots and move the levers of government to accomplish this.

If you have some time, listen to Crooked Media’s recent interview with Elizabeth Warren below to get a sense of what I mean. No other candidate brings this level of passion, depth and seeing all sides of an issue. So here’s hoping Warren’s candidacy takes off, and Democrats focus more on her than the many fly-by-night candidates good at theatrics but not so good at putting it altogether.

Presidential nomination theatrics don’t mean much. Here’s what really matters.

The Thinker by Rodin

Are you a Bernie bro? Or just a Bernie supporter? Do you go gaga when Liz Warren comes up with new policy solutions? Does Kirsten Gillibrand’s blonde hair make you swoon? Can you identify with Kamala Harris’ multihued skin and mixture of black and Hispanic heritage? Do you feel a magnetically drawn to Beto O’Rourke but don’t really understand why? Does Pete Buttigieg’s candidacy flag your interest despite your inability to pronounce his last name properly?

There is no lack of Democratic presidential candidates out there, even though the first votes for the nomination are more than ten months away. It’s natural for us Democrats to project our hopes onto a candidate. I just want to posit that exactly who Democrats nominate won’t matter too much. Any of them will be more than acceptable, so let’s stop obsessing over their personalities and positions. Instead, if you care, place your energy behind movements, and not a particular candidate.

In electing Trump, Americans bought into the fallacious idea that one person can fix what’s wrong in America. Trump was going to be our strongman. Using bullying he perfected over seventy years; he was going to set America back on the right course. Of course, just the opposite happened. But even if you bought into his nihilistic vision of Make America White Again, he’s failing miserably at it even using his own benchmarks. Trump can’t save America. None of the Democratic presidential contenders can either. No one person can. We save American by caring enough about it to give it the time, attention and resources it requires.

We save America by taking back our government. So let’s talk about how to do that, noting that in 2018 we made great progress by gaining control of the House in a huge wave election. It’s not like we don’t have a whole lot of things that need immediate fixes. Otherwise, come January 20, 2021, most likely there will be only another long, dispiriting slog ahead of us trying to make change. No bully president or bully pulpit can make change. Only we can.

Nationally though there is plenty of work ahead of us. Here are some things we can do:

  • The Electoral College has got to go. The only official way to get rid of it is through constitutional amendment. The unofficial way is for enough states to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. We need states representing 270 electoral votes to join in. States that join it will pledge their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the national popular vote. We have 181 electoral votes representing 11 states plus D.C. right now. This legislation is pending in fifteen states, consisting of 158 electoral votes. Considering the Electoral College brought us George W. Bush and the Iraq War, not to mention Donald Trump, it’s an effort worth your time and support. We need 89 more electoral votes. Check the map and see if your state is considering it and if so get involved. Just take a few minutes to write your state senators and legislators and urge them to vote for the bill. And if you can, join with neighbors to do it as a focused group.
  • Similarly, we need districts that aren’t gerrymandered to give disproportionate power to incumbents. I give money to the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. In theory even a Republican who believes in this should support this effort. The committee is not trying to stack the odds to favor Democrats. They want districts that are drawn in a nonpartisan manner. Given them some money and time.
  • Elect Democrats to the Senate. Democrats need just 4 net seats to turn the Senate blue in 2020. It is doable since Republicans have to defend twice as many seats as Democrats in 2020. The Arizona seat is open and Arizona is trending blue. Easiest seats to flip are Maine (Collins), North Carolina (Tillis) and Iowa (Ernst). Holding onto Alabama (Jones) will be tough. It can be done, particularly in a wave election, but it requires good candidates, support from people like you and high voter turnout.
  • End the filibuster. The filibuster rules in the Senate are largely dead anyhow, but what remains keep most legislation from even being considered if it doesn’t get a sixty vote threshold. The exception is narrow legislation that meet budget reconciliation rules and many court vacancies. To wield a majority to affect real change, what’s left of it has to go. Vote for senators who pledge to end it. Otherwise initiatives like addressing climate change and voting rights are likely to die there regardless of who is president and how big our majorities are in the House.
  • Vote for change. Unless incumbents have a strong record for voting for the change you want to see, vote them out and vote for someone who will. This is true for state and city offices as well as for national offices. The one exception: do not vote for a third-party candidate for president. All you do is shoot yourself in the foot, as these voters proved again in 2016.