Monthly Archives: November 2019

Democracy, Income Inequality

George Will, trolling Elizabeth Warren, asks the wrong question about billionaires

“Warren, whose profile in courage is to foment hostility toward a small minority (“billionaires”), should try an experiment — not at her rallies of the resentful, but with an audience of representative Americans. Ask how many in the audience own an Apple product? The overwhelming majority will raise their hands. Then ask: How many resent the fact that Steve Jobs, Apple’s innovator, died a billionaire? Few hands will be raised.” — George Will, “Elizabeth Warren is progressivissm’s Donald Trump”

He adds this for good measure:

Warren’s dependence on a wealth tax announces progressivism’s failure of nerve, its unwillingness to require anyone other than a tiny crumb of society’s upper crust to pay significantly for the cornucopia of benefits that she clearly thinks everyone wants — but only if someone else pays for them.

On the same morning Will’s wisdom about taxation, billionaires, and Americans with iPhones and other Apple merchandise appeared, a SurveyMonkey poll in the New York Times revealed the measure of popular support for Senator Warren’s proposed two percent tax on individual wealth above $50 million.

Sixty-three percent of Americans support this wealth tax; 77% of Democrats; 55% of Independents; and 57% of Republicans.

That’s right, even a clear majority of Republicans are in favor of imposing a 2 percent tax on this “tiny crumb of society’s upper crust.”

The Times reports: “Support for a wealth tax cuts across many of the demographic dividing lines in American politics. Men and women like it. So do the young and the old. The proposal receives majority support among every major racial, educational and income group.”

The survey found a single group that opposes this plan: College-educated Republican men, only 41.5% of whom endorse the proposed wealth tax.

Will’s reference to the popularity of stuff made by Apple is confirmed by the link he offers, which reports, “Sixty-four percent of Americans now own an apple product,” — virtually the same percentage that support a 2-cents on the dollar tax on assets over $50 million.

While George Will is focused on hostility and resentment and hand-wringing over the oppressed minority of the rich, Americans — including those of us (like Elizabeth Warren) with ample appreciation for the benefits of a competitive market economy — believe in the fairness of progressive taxation, just as the U.S. had back in the 1950s and 1960s, when everyone received a more equitable share of the nation’s wealth.

2020 Democratic Primary, Income Inequality

Michael Bloomberg has an expensive plan to win the Democratic presidential primary

“Running for the nomination without running in the early states is like defying gravity. That’s how hard it is,’’ Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who wrote a book about the presidential nominating process, said ahead of Bloomberg’s announcement. “However, what has not been tried is defying gravity with a lot of money behind you.’’ — “Bloomberg Takes Untested Path to 2020, Skipping Key Contests,” by Mark Nigutte, Bloomberg News.

Add to that ‘however’ a second however: Donald J. Trump. He was nominated and elected even though conventional wisdom and political history both suggested that the chances of this outcome were slim to none.

The objection to the second however is: Democratic primary voters did not rally around Trump.

Democrats are not all liberals, many oppose Bernie Sanders’ revolution and Elizabeth Warren’s plans to address income inequality, and many more may be too anxious to take a chance on any nominee perceived as too far from the center because they think it makes Trump’s reelection more likely.

But it’s hard to see Democrats rallying around Bloomberg, no matter what his “unique set of experiences in business, government and philanthropy,” especially since his opposition to candidates on his left appear to be focused on shielding his $50+ billion fortune (and that of every other billionaire). In an era of unprecedented income inequality, this seems to be an unlikely time for Democrats to embrace a billionaire with no intention of campaigning in the first four primary states or standing on a debate stage with other Democratic candidates, choosing instead to spend a fortune on advertising.

Of course, as the Trump experience shows, slim to none is not definitive. And Bloomberg’s fortune increases his odds at least a bit.

Image: FDR signing the Social Security Act.

Democrats, Republicans, Short & Sweet ... Short & Sour

Might Joe Biden be having second thoughts about working cooperatively with his GOP friends?

Understatement of the day:

“The increasingly personal and angry nature of the impeachment proceedings threatens to undercut a key message of Joe Biden’s campaign — that comity and civility can return to Washington after President Trump’s departure and that he’s the man to make that happen.” — Matt Viser, Washington Post (“Joe Biden unloads on Lindsey Graham amid signs GOP senators will target Hunter”)

(Image: screengrab of Democratic debate in Atlanta.)

2020 General Election, Democracy, Donald Trump

Five Takeaways following the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment hearings

I. Putin’s authorship of the “Russia hoax.” II. Distinguishing a national security foreign policy channel and a channel dedicated to a domestic political errand. III. Closing statements from Ranking Member Nunes and Chairman Schiff. IV. What pushed Schiff to impeachment. V. Will Hurd can’t justify impeachment, as Justin Amash tries to nudge him in that direction.

I. In her opening statement before the committee, Fiona Hill, former Deputy Assistant to the President Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs, noted with dismay that Republicans on the committee, in denying Russian interference in the 2016 election, were fulfilling Vladimir Putin’s stratagem to weaken our country:

“Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country—and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.

The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies, confirmed in bipartisan Congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some of the underlying details must remain classified.

The impact of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today. Our nation is being torn apart. Truth is questioned. Our highly professional and expert career foreign service is being undermined.

U.S. support for Ukraine—which continues to face armed Russian aggression—has been politicized.

The Russian government’s goal is to weaken our country—to diminish America’s global role and to neutralize a perceived U.S. threat to Russian interests. President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter U.S. foreign policy objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine, where Moscow wishes to reassert political and economic dominance.

I say this not as an alarmist, but as a realist. I do not think long-term conflict with Russia is either desirable or inevitable. I continue to believe that we need to seek ways of stabilizing our relationship with Moscow even as we counter their efforts to harm us. Right now, Russia’s security services and their proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. We are running out of time to stop them. In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.

As Republicans and Democrats have agreed for decades, Ukraine is a valued partner of the United States, and it plays an important role in our national security. And as I told this Committee last month, I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine—not Russia—attacked us in 2016.

These fictions are harmful even if they are deployed for purely domestic political purposes. President Putin and the Russian security services operate like a Super PAC. They deploy millions of dollars to weaponize our own political opposition research and false narratives. When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us against each another, degrade our institutions, and destroy the faith of the American people in our democracy.

I respect the work that this Congress does in carrying out its constitutional responsibilities, including in this inquiry, and I am here to help you to the best of my ability. If the President, or anyone else, impedes or subverts the national security of the United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than worthy of your attention. But we must not let domestic politics stop us from defending ourselves against the foreign powers who truly wish us harm.”

II. In response to a question from minority counsel Steve Castor, Dr. Hill responded with a succinct delineation of the two policy channels the Trump administration was pursuing. After acknowledging her anger at Ambassador Sondland, she continued:

“And what I was angry about was that he wasn’t coordinating with us. I now actually realize, having listened to his deposition, that he was absolutely right. That he wasn’t coordinating with us because we weren’t doing the same thing that he was doing.

So I was upset with him that he wasn’t fully telling us about all of the meetings that he was having. And he said to me: “But I’m briefing the president. I’m briefing Chief of staff Mulvaney. I’m briefing Secretary Pompeo. And I’ve talked to Ambassador Bolton. Who else do I have to deal with?”

And the point is, we have a robust interagency process that deals with Ukraine. It includes Mr. Holmes. It includes Ambassador Taylor as the chargé in Ukraine. It includes a whole load of other people. But it struck me when—yesterday—when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland’s emails, and who was on these emails and he said, “These the people need to know,” that he was absolutely right. Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand. And we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And those two things had just diverged. 

So he was correct.

And I had not put my finger on that at the moment, but I was irritated with him and angry with him that he wasn’t fully coordinating. And I did say to him, Ambassador Sondland—Gordon, I think this is all going to blow up. And here we are.

And after I left to my next meeting, our director for the European Union talked to him much further for a full half-hour or more later, trying to ask him about how we could coordinate better or how others could coordinate better after I had left the office. And his feeling was that the National Security Council was always trying to block him.

What we were trying to do was block us from straying into domestic or personal politics. And that was precisely what I was trying to do.

But Ambassador Sondland is not wrong that he had been given a different remit than we had been.

And it was at that moment that I started to realize how those things have diverged. And I realized, in fact, that I wasn’t really being fair to Ambassador Sondland because he was carrying out what he thought he had been instructed to carry out. And we were doing something that we thought was just as or perhaps even more important, but it wasn’t in the same channel.”

III. Mr. Nunes, in his closing statement, offered a timeline that made no reference to any testimony from the public hearings over the past two weeks. Replete with references to the Steele dossier, a coup, “the Russia hoax,” “the so-called whistleblower,” “secret depositions and mid-hearing press conferences,” and “a show trial,” the gentleman from California condemned Democrats, the media, executive branch officials, James Comey, and the FBI, and complained that tyranny of the majority had led to “a process that was grossly unfair.”

Throughout the hearings, as Adam Schiff noted, Republicans attempted to smear and demean witnesses, while failing to raise substantive questions about their testimony. Witness after witness offered accounts without any refutation. In the words of the chairman, “So much of this is really undisputed.”

Mr. Schiff then reviewed and knocked down the various ‘defenses’ Republicans have offered for Trump, and finally lands on the I’m-not-a-crook defense (which comes to the fore because Donald Trump spoke the words, “No quid pro quo”):

“You said it and, I guess, that’s the end of it.

Well, the only thing we can say is that it’s not so much that this situation is different in terms of Nixon’s conduct and Trump’s conduct. What we have seen here is far more serious than a third-rate burglary of the Democratic headquarters. What we’re talking about here is the withholding of recognition in that White House meeting. The withholding of military aid to an ally at war. That is beyond anything that Nixon did.

The difference between then and now is not the difference between Nixon and Trump. It’s the difference between that Congress and this one.

And so, we are asking, where is Howard Baker? Where is Howard Baker? Where are the people who willing to go beyond their party? To look to their duty? I was struck by Colonel Vindman’s testimony because he said that he acted out of duty. What is our duty here? That’s what we need to be asking.”

IV. Mr. Schiff concluded his statement with words about why he could “resist no more” the calls for an impeachment inquiry:

“It came down to the fact that the day after Bob Mueller testified. The day after Bob Mueller testified that Donald Trump invited Russian interference: Hey, Russia, if you’re listening, come get Hillary’s emails. And later that day, they tried to hack her server.

The day after he testified that not only did Trump invite that interference, but that he welcomed the help in the campaign. They made full use of it. They lied about it. They obstructed the investigation into it. And all this is in his testimony and his report.

The day after that Donald Trump is back on the phone asking another nation to involve itself in another U.S. election.

That says to me, this President believes he is above the law. Beyond accountability. And in my view there is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes they are above the law. And I would just say to people watching here at home and around the world, in the words of my great colleague, ‘We are better than that.’ “

By the time he reaches the last four sentences of his remarks (finally concluding by quoting the late Elijah Cummings), and gavels the hearing to a close, Mr. Schiff is visibly angry.

V. Will Hurd, who is leaving the House without seeking reelection and is the lone Republican on the panel who was regarded as a possible vote to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, rejected that course of action on Friday:

“An impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelmingly clear, and unambiguous. And it’s not something to be rushed or taken lightly. I’ve not heard evidence proving the President committed bribery or extortion.”

His colleague Justin Amash, who has left the Republican Party, offered a reply that is highly unlikely to resonate with any current Republican Members of Congress:

“With respect, my friend @HurdOnTheHill applies the wrong standard. House impeachment is an indictment, not a conviction. The question in the House is whether there is probable cause to charge President Trump with an impeachable offense. The answer to that question is clearly yes. “

Democracy, Off the Rails, Tribalism

Worlds collide, truth fractures — the Lesson on Day One of the public impeachment hearings

The nation is divided. The opposing sides cannot even agree on plain as day, garden variety, eyes wide open facts. Yesterday, from my vantage point, the evidence presented by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent and Ambassador William Taylor was devastating for President Donald Trump.

Rank and file Republicans, who buy into the world according to Fox News Channel, didn’t see the same thing. Meanwhile even Republican Congressmen who don’t push unhinged conspiracy theories, fail to push back against them. And this (as Ronald Brownstein points out) suggests that the rule of law across party lines is endangered.

Screenshots by Danielle Misiak via Mother Jones.

“The larger question the hearings may raise, then, is whether the partisan divide has widened to the point where Republican voters and elected officials alike will not consider valid any process controlled by Democrats, no matter how powerful the evidence it produces. If that’s the case, it points toward a future in which partisan loyalties eclipse, to a growing extent, any shared national commitment to applying the rule of law across party lines. Even given the decades-long rise in political polarization, such a rejection of common standards would constitute an ominous threshold for the nation to cross. . . .

The willingness of rank-and-file Republican voters to dismiss the concerns of such nonpartisan voices underscores the extent to which the party has grown resistant to outside information that challenges its ideological preferences…. [argument attributed to Alan Abramowitz, political scientist at Emory University] . . .

A recent survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that the roughly 45 percent of Republicans who identified Fox as their primary news source expressed nearly unbroken opposition to impeachment. Just 2 percent of Fox-dependent Republicans said they back Trump’s removal, compared with 10 percent of those who don’t rely on the network, the poll found. The indifferent response to the evidence against Trump on Ukraine “is maybe the best example so far of how the Fox News bubble just totally consumes a different reality—which, of course, is not actually reality….” [quotation from Andrew Baumann, Democratic pollster] . . .

In that environment, it’s easy for Trump to convince much of his base that any charge against him—even allegations from nonpartisan diplomats and national-security professionals—is inherently a liberal plot to silence him and his supporters. Very few Republican elected officials have challenged that conspiratorial argument.” — Ronald Brownstein, “Just How Far Will Republicans Go for Trump?“

Conservatives with convictions that don’t budge because the political winds change direction, who have been loyal Republicans but can’t deny Donald Trump’s unfitness as a leader, are horrified by their party’s opportunistic embrace of the man. Peter Wehner served in the Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush administrations. He couldn’t bear the thought of voting for Hillary Clinton; he laments the “increasingly radicalized” Democratic Party. But he sees with clear eyes the GOP circa 2019:

“What makes the Trump era so unusual isn’t partisanship and political tribalism, which have been around for much of human existence. It is the degree to which the transgressive nature of Trump—his willingness to go places no other president has gone, to say and do things that no president before him has done—has exposed the Republican Party. There is hardly a pretense any more regarding what the party, and the right-wing media complex, are doing. They are driven by a single, all-consuming commitment: Defend Donald Trump at all costs. That is the end they seek, and they will pursue virtually any means necessary to achieve it. This from the party that once said it stood for objective truth, for honor and integrity, and against moral relativism.

We are facing a profound political crisis. What the Republican Party is saying and signaling isn’t simply that rationality and truth are subordinate to partisanship; it is that they have to be obliterated for the sake of partisanship and the survival of the Trump presidency. As best I can tell, based on some fairly intense interactions with Trump supporters, there is no limiting principle—almost nothing he can do—that will forfeit their support. Members of Congress clearly believe Trump is all that stands between them and the loss of power, while many Trump voters believe the president is all that stands between them and national ruin. In either case, it has led them into the shadowlands.” . . .

“The Republican Party under Donald Trump is a party built largely on lies, and it is now maintained by politicians and supporters who are willing to “live within the lie,” to quote the great Czech dissident (and later president) Vaclav Havel. Many congressional Republicans privately admit this but, with very rare exceptions—Utah Senator Mitt Romney is the most conspicuous example—refuse to publicly acknowledge it.

“For what purpose?” they respond point-blank when asked why they don’t speak out with moral urgency against the president’s moral transgressions, his cruelty, his daily assault on reality, and his ongoing destruction of our civic and political culture. Trump is more powerful and more popular than they are, they will say, and they will be targeted by him and his supporters and perhaps even voted out of office.” — Peter Wehner, “The Exposure of the Republican Party“

(Image above headline: CNN on YouTube.)

Donald Trump, Off the Rails, Short & Sweet ... Short & Sour

Can there be any doubt of Donald Trump’s unfitness to protect and defend our Constitution?

A linchpin of U.S. and Western security has been keeping Vladimir Putin’s Russia in check. Time and again Trump has acted to sabotage this goal and undermine our allies. That’s the subject of the impeachment inquiry.

“Mr. Trump had a choice between executing his administration’s own strategy for containing Russia or pursuing a political obsession at home.

He chose the obsession.

In an otherwise divided Washington, one of the few issues of bipartisan agreement for the past six years has been countering Russian President Vladimir V. Putin’s broad plan of disruption. That effort starts in Ukraine, where there has been a hot war underway in the east for five years, and a cyber war underway in the capital, Kiev.

It is exactly that policy that Mr. Trump appears to have been discarding when he made clear, in the haunting words attributed to Gordon D. Sondland, who parlayed political donations into the ambassadorship to the European Union, that “President Trump cares more about the investigation of Biden” than about Ukraine’s confrontation with Mr. Putin’s forces.” — David E. Sanger, “Trump’s Choice: National Security or Political Obsession.”

(Image: AP Photo/Evan Vucci via 8Red Current Events.)

Democracy, Donald Trump, Short & Sweet ... Short & Sour

Did Misguided Certainty of Clinton’s victory ensure her defeat? It won’t happen in 2020.

Insight of the day — on the third anniversary of Donald Trump’s election:

“Now, there’s no way to prove that people who didn’t bother to vote, or cast a protest vote for a minor-party candidate or even for Trump while assuming he could not actually be inaugurated, cost Clinton the election (there’s actually some evidence that minor-party voting hurt Trump more than his opponent). But if you add together the substantial evidence that nonvoters skewed Democratic and consider the tactical mistakes Team Clinton seemed to make due to misperceptions of the state of the race (e.g., focusing resources on Arizona rather than Wisconsin), it’s clear the element of surprise was an important — perhaps critical — asset for the 45th president.
If so, he’s lost it for good heading toward 2020, and that could be a hidden asset for his Democratic opponent, whoever it is.” — Ed Kilgore, New York Magazine

There are a ton of factors that contributed to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss. I haven’t any proof that the conventional wisdom that Clinton would win actually bolstered the number of third party votes or, more significantly, increased the number of prospective voters who just didn’t bother to cast a ballot (or even, as Kilgore suggests, pulled the lever for Trump knowing he wouldn’t win).

But it would be difficult to convince me that this isn’t so.

This won’t happen in 2020.

(Image: detail from cover of Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here.)

2020 Democratic Primary

Irony watch: Has ‘Mary Poppins’ morphed into another … unlikable Democratic woman?

My last post included this quotation on Elizabeth Warren’s attempt to distinguish herself from the last Democratic woman to seek the presidency: ‘Instead of the aloof insider-technocrat, she is promoting herself as a kind of “Mary Poppins” figure — the cheerful, exuberant, uber-competent woman who simply gets things done and makes everyone feel included and proud.’

It turns out that a couple of the men — Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg — seeking the Democratic nomination have discovered that Senator Warren, like Hillary Clinton before her, lacks the proper presidential demeanor:

Buttigieg laid the groundwork by criticizing Warren’s “my way or the highway approach” and suggesting recently that she is “so absorbed in the fighting that it is as though fighting were the purpose.” Biden, launching a range of new attacks on Warren, said this week that she reflects “an angry unyielding viewpoint that has crept into our politics.”

This tact is depressingly effective in contemporary politics:

“Labeling a woman angry, or emotional or shrill, is a well-worn strategy when it comes to attacking women’s qualification to serve an office,” said Amanda Hunter, a spokeswoman for the Barbara Lee Foundation, which conducts research on women seeking elected office.

Those attacks, she said, can be effective because they sow doubt in the person and make them less likable.

“Voters will not support a woman they do not like even if they believe she’s qualified,” she said, citing extensive research. “But they will vote for a man they do not like.”

Anyone who has watched Warren on the campaign trail can see how ill-fitting this critique of her is: “Warren bounds onto the stage…. The affect is upbeat, barely contained energy.” But, in my view, Biden’s recurring promise to restore comity in Washington is even more off the mark.

“With Donald Trump out of the way, you’re going to see a number of my Republican colleagues have an epiphany. Mark my words. Mark my words.”

Barack Obama offered this exact critique circa 2012: “I believe that If we’re successful in this election, when we’re successful in this election, that the fever may break, because there’s a tradition in the Republican Party of more common sense than that. My hope, my expectation, is that after the election, now that it turns out that the goal of beating Obama doesn’t make much sense because I’m not running again, that we can start getting some cooperation again.”

Didn’t happen. And Biden should know better, since he experienced the absolute Republican intransigence from the beginning:

Vice President Biden told me that during the transition, he was warned not to expect any bipartisan cooperation on major votes. “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators who said, ‘Joe, I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ ” he recalled. His informants said McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was, ‘For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’ ” Biden said. The Vice President said he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with Biden along those lines.

“So I promise you — and the President agreed with me — I never thought we were going to get Republican support,” Biden said.

The Veep has apparently forgotten what the country experienced during eight years of the Obama presidency. And if he wants to preserve his self-christened “middle class Joe” credentials — though that has become more of a stretch — he may wish to embrace a more unyielding approach.

It’s going to take a fight to undo decades that created the chasm between the middle class and the super rich. Republicans (who have fought tenaciously to create this dichotomy) won’t be helping just because likeable Joe Biden wins an election.

(Image: Senator Warren’s official portrait.)

2020 Democratic Primary, Polls

Would Elizabeth Warren lead Democrats to victory or spoil their prospects in 2020?

“Tall and wiry, Warren visibly thrums with good cheer. She’s got that kind of pert friendliness stretched taut around a core of steel that some foreigners find confusing in certain willful Americans. But in Warren, both the chipper facade and the steel guts feel genuine: She is a very nice lady who will put up with exactly zero bullcrap.” —  Julia Ioffe, “The Summer of Warren.”

Five months ago, Markos Moulitsas approvingly quoted a Daily Kos reader, Fatherflot, who described Elizabeth Warren’s attempt to distinguish herself from Hillary Clinton with this observation:

Instead of the aloof insider-technocrat, she is promoting herself as a kind of “Mary Poppins” figure — the cheerful, exuberant, uber-competent woman who simply gets things done and makes everyone feel included and proud.

Sounds good to me, but then I fit the demographic profile of a Warren supporter. College educated white liberal who lives in solid blue California. My first vote for president was for George McGovern. I am a Democrat first and foremost because of my conviction that the economy should not be stacked against middle- and working-class Americans.

Warren is my first choice for president. But should I be scared away? As Warren’s polling numbers increase, a number of Wall Street executives are in near-panic because she might win the presidency (“From corporate boardrooms to breakfast meetings, investor conferences to charity galas, Ms. Warren’s rise in the Democratic primary polls is rattling bankers, investors and their affluent clients, who see in the Massachusetts senator a formidable opponent who could damage not only their industry but their way of life.”), while Democrats are voicing alarm that she is taking stands, most especially her uncompromising embrace of Medicare for All, that could ensure her defeat. Jonathan Chait is typical of this group of Democrats: “If Warren wants to beat Trump, she needs to ditch Bernie’s health-care plan and come up with one that doesn’t have political poison pills.” (Chait’s observation came before Warren doubled down with her written plan to pay for Medicare for All.)

Recent polling serves to increase Democratic anxieties. Medicare for All is popular among Democratic activists; it is unpopular among registered voters. (I have opposed Medicare for All on both policy and political grounds – at least in the foreseeable future.)

Chart from Thomas Edsall, “Democrats Can Still Seize the Center.” Numbers from Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, “U.S. Voters Support Expanding Medicare but Not Eliminating Private Health Insurance.”

In recent polling, among Democratic voters, 63% supported Medicare for All. Among all registered voters, 56% opposed it.

Warren is a persuasive advocate – in a classroom or before a live audience in Iowa. (The house lights are on when she speaks: “I don’t want to be in a theater where I’m on stage and the audience is in the dark. This is not a performance, this is a chance to engage, for all of us in the room to think about what’s happening to our country, to our lives, and I need to see faces when I’m talking through that.”) But as the campaign transitions from retail to wholesale, and the Republican noise machine trains its focus on the one Democrat left standing, Medicare for All is going to be a very hard sell (and Warren seems to be digging in, rather than anticipating a pivot during the general election).

And then there’s this:

From Nate Cohn, New York Times.

There is a full year before Election Day, and a lot can change. Ms. Warren is an energetic campaigner. She could moderate her image or energize young and nonwhite voters, including the millions who might not yet even be included in a poll of today’s registered voters. Mr. Biden could lose the relatively conservative voters who currently back him; the president could be dealt irreparable political damage during the impeachment process.

But on average over the last three cycles, head-to-head polls a year ahead of the election have been as close to the final result as those taken the day before. The stability of the president’s approval rating is a reason to think this pattern might hold again for a fourth cycle, at least for the three leading and already well-known Democrats tested in these polls.

What Democrats make of this picture is undoubtedly in the eye of the beholder. As I think of Joe Biden’s performance to date, his marginal polling advantage a year out doesn’t make me more likely to support him in the primary. I’d rather put my faith in Elizabeth Warren’s skill at communicating with conviction a message for working Americans.

Jonathan Chait, who is clearly worried about Warren, nonetheless acknowledges her skill set: “She is a compelling orator with a sympathetic life story and a gift for explaining complex ideas in simple terms. Yet she has spent most of the last year positioning herself as if the general election will never happen. At the moment, I’d feel very nervous betting the future of American democracy on Warren’s ability to defeat Trump. But a lot can change in a year, and it’s not hard to imagine the Warren of 2020 as a potent challenger.”

I’m not one to panic. But I certainly recall the jolt of Trump’s victory. The week before election day in 2016, I was reassuring my friends that Hillary Clinton would win by sending them this confident tweet from David Plouffe:

“Clinton path to 300+ rock solid. Structure of race not affected by Comey’s reckless irresponsibility. Vote and volunteer, don’t fret or wet.” — 11:05 am – 30 October 2016

I wasn’t a worrier – not until about the time the polls were closing in California (when I first tuned-in to TV coverage). There had been too many reassurances from Plouffe (and many others) throughout the months preceding that tweet. I’m part of the reality-based community. I was too well-informed to fret or wet.

I’m still not a worrier. I have no trouble envisaging a Democratic victory – 12 months hence – no matter who is nominated. Time will tell.

In the meantime, as a Californian, it doesn’t much matter what I think. Not yet. In 2020, as in so many previous elections, caucus goers in Iowa and primary voters in New Hampshire are going to shape or reshape the race. I was on board with Obama and Clinton before Iowa in 2008 and 2016, respectively. In the years before that, I was as often annoyed, rather than pleased by the choices of Democrats in those early states.

For now, I can only wait and watch.

(Image by Mary Shepard circa 1934.)