Monthly Archives: February 2020

2020 Democratic Primary

Democrats seek a nominee to take on Trump: thoughts on the state of the race

Bernie Sanders romped in Nevada. Some observations on the contest:

Bernie Sanders

I see no reason to reject the conventional wisdom that Bernie Sanders is the clear frontrunner, with ample resources to compete on Super Tuesday and no rivals well positioned at this stage to overtake him. Absent Biden (or another rival) achieving a lopsided takedown of Sanders in South Carolina, this is unlikely to change.

Sanders’ success, thus far, proves the adage that practice makes perfect. He did this in 2016. He has built an ardent following, a formidable campaign organization, an impressive online donor base, and – even with an intervening heart attack – he has hardly missed a beat in the 2020 race.

“I’ve got news for the Republican establishment. I’ve got news for the Democratic establishment. They can’t stop us.”

This is a central theme, not always articulated so plainly, of the Sanders campaign. The theme rubs many grassroots voters (including this blogger) – who embrace the Democratic Party and have more faith in Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and other establishment Democrats (even James Carville), than we have in the junior senator from Vermont – the wrong way. But if Sanders wins the nomination, and if Democrats are prepared to rally ’round their nominee (as I am), this stance is likely to serve him well.

Joe Biden

He wasn’t impressive in his first two runs for the Democratic nomination. He clearly has lost more than a step or two at age 77. I didn’t buy the “Comeback Kid” shout on the night of the Nevada caucuses. Biden had better hope for an impressive performance in South Carolina or his political swan song will be that he smothered the prospects of several 2020 primary competitors positioned ideologically near him, who might have been stronger presences on the debate stage and the campaign trail than the former VP has been.

Pete Buttigieg

The former mayor of South Bend (along with numerous Republican candidates) has started running TV ads that go after Sanders by name. More emphasis on term limits and bashing (with Bernie!) the Washington establishment won’t win the day, so it’s time to go negative. Unless Buttigieg wins or finishes a strong second in South Carolina, it’s hard to envisage him with much chance of catching Sanders at this stage.

Mike Bloomberg

“He has now spent more than half a billion dollars since late November, propelling a rapid ascent in the polls.” Wow.

Mark Green relates his experience running against Bloomberg:

Three weeks before the New York mayoral election in November of 2001, I got a call from Mark Mellman, the pollster working on my race against Michael Bloomberg.

“Well, I have good and bad news. The good news is that I’ve never had a client 20 points ahead this late in a campaign who lost. The bad news is that Bloomberg is spending a million dollars a day — not a month but a day — and gaining a point a day.” I quickly did the math and shuddered.

Green lost 50% to 48%.

I’m skeptical that even with his billions, Bloomberg can secure the 2020 nomination from Democratic voters. But his immense stash is hard to contemplate. Will unlimited resources enable the mayor to block Sanders’ rise? Will ‘centrist’ establishment Democrats move to the billionaire’s corner and bring voters with them? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.

Elizabeth Warren

With all her assets, my favorite candidate to take on Trump has been overtaken by others in the field. Amy Klobuchar has experienced a similar fate.

Not the year of the woman – at least not at the top of the ticket

Which brings me, as someone convinced that a woman could beat Trump in November, to a galling (albeit unprovable) conclusion. Democrats were snake bitten by Clinton’s crash in 2016. To the extent that Warren’s gender has harmed her in the primary, this can be laid at the feet of Democratic voters – spooked by Trump – fearful of misogyny, sexism, and intractable gendered traditionalism among the broader electorate – other voters – who might consider voting for a Democrat with a Y chromosome. If you’re convinced that the strongest candidate happens to be female, you must agree (as Jimmy Carter reminded us), life is not fair.

Democrats in disarray

Edward-Isaac Dovere, writing in the Atlantic, suggests that the Democratic establishment is desperate to stop Sanders, though he found few folks, apparently, saying so aloud. He quotes a vice president at Third Way, which opposes a Sanders nomination, and a lieutenant governor of California (who few Californians could name), who supports Buttigieg, plus someone at Emily’s List, which continues to support Warren and Klobuchar, the women still in the race. This is pretty weak tea. I guess most of the heavy hitters are in hiding.

Dovere writes, “This summer, party leaders may be forced to accept the nomination of a man who’s not officially a member of the party, who won’t have won a majority of primary voters, and whose agenda is popular with his progressive base but doesn’t have as much support with Democrats as a whole.” The link is to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey showing that 77% of Democrats support Sanders’ signature issue, Medicare for All. Yes, the public option is even more popular and support for Medicare for All diminishes when realistic details are added to the question, but – like Obamacare and the individual mandate – that’s the nature of public policy and public opinion.

Let’s acknowledge: democratic socialism and revolution aren’t popular Democratic campaign themes. But Sanders – in contrast to Hillary Clinton in 2016 – has a compelling economic message that resonates with many voters, especially younger voters who have reason to believe that the system hasn’t worked well for them.

The Democratic Party didn’t have to allow Sanders to enter the Democratic primary in 2016. The man is a free agent with virtually no loyalty to the party. But it did so. I welcomed Sanders’ challenge at the time (though I never entertained the idea of voting for him) because I thought he would make Clinton a stronger candidate and, in particular, to prompt her to sharpen her economic message to middle- and working-class Americans.

In retrospect, I couldn’t have been more wrong. I don’t think her campaign learned a thing from Sanders’ challenge. And, I suspect that a comfortable life with Bill Clinton, who has cashed in as a past president and advanced into the ranks of the one-percent, made it tough for Hillary to recognize the measure of economic angst and anger directed toward the one-percenters who crashed the economy, escaped justice, and continue to thrive.

Sanders – although he is a millionaire with three houses – is speaking to those voters.

Can Democrats unify to beat Trump?

Defeating a president presiding over a continuing economic expansion won’t be easy. Sanders continues to poll well against Trump, but it’s early. I’m convinced that Sanders wouldn’t be the strongest possible contender this fall. But in a base election, I believe any Democratic nominee stands a fighting chance. The country is split down the middle. Democrats are highly motivated to end Trump’s reign.

Will Sanders at the top of the ticket harm the prospects of Democrats taking back the Senate? Probably. He will almost certainly make life more difficult for many down-ballot Democrats. So it is up to the party and the candidate to do their best to overcome this disadvantage.

Sanders has been – as Matt Yglesias has argued – an effective legislator, “dramatically more pragmatic than his record,” not a kook. One hopes, if he wins the nomination, he runs a savvy, pragmatic general election campaign. With Sanders at the top of the ticket, the Democrats will have a strong case to make for creating an economy that works for everyone, not just the millionaires and billionaires.

Meanwhile, Democratic Senate and House candidates can run away from Sanders (as many ran away from Nancy Pelosi in 2018) if they must. They can embrace the strongest elements of his agenda, a Democratic agenda, while promising that they’ll never vote to take away employer-based health care. And note that the leadership of the Culinary Workers Union, which brought its members a superb health care plan – offering 24-hour clinics with no deductibles and modest co-pays, coverage for dental care, eye care, and prescription drugs, while pushing out middlemen and profit centers – opposed Sanders in Nevada. Much of the membership disagreed.

Sanders put together a diverse winning coalition in Nevada. If he can keep this up, he will be the Democrat nominee.

(Image of Sunday, February 23, 2020 Los Angeles Times with Mike Bloomberg front-page wraparound ad.)

2020 Democratic Primary, Democrats

If only the women running for the Democratic nomination were more likable

“A gentle warning to Democrats who are newly awakened to the prospect of Amy Klobuchar:

Remember that right now you like her. . . .

A woman but not, you know, the Elizabeth Warren kind of woman everyone had decided they didn’t like or couldn’t win. . . An electable woman. Acceptable to the assorted Biden castoffs and Buttigieg skeptics. . . .” — Monica Hesse (“You like Amy Klobuchar now? Remember that when your inner sexist starts doubting her,” WaPo, February 13, 2020).

As Hesse reminds us, Hillary Clinton had a 65% approval rating as Secretary of State, while Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand made strong positive first impressions when they declared their candidacies — until doubts about how likable (or, in some way or another, how presidential) they were overtook them.

In a November 2019 post, I noted that Elizabeth Warren was being transformed from a “cheerful, exuberant, uber-competent woman who simply gets things done and makes everyone feel included and proud” — à la Mary Poppins — into another unlikable Democratic woman.

I’m still with Ed Kilgore: C’mon, Democrats, don’t buy into Trump’s misogyny. Women serving in the House, the Senate, as governors and state legislators, and in local offices all the way down the electoral ladder are highly successful.

There is a long list of reasons why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in 2016: Vladimir Putin; Steve Bannon, Robert Mercer, and Clinton Cash; James Comey; complacency; her campaign’s neglect of voters in Michigan and Wisconsin … I could go on and on, and never mention sexism.

But after 2016, Democrats are spooked. They are second-guessing their own judgment — er, um, the judgment of other voters — on who is best qualified to beat Trump. Gotta make a safe choice, right?

Wouldn’t it be great to elect a woman, though? Kilgore quotes Li Zhou, who makes the case that the prospect of electing women creates added excitement among Democratic voters. Remember 2018 when Democrats, and a record number of women candidates, took back the House?

After November 2016, and the Mueller Report, and the Senate acquittal of Trump, and the week since the acquittal, fear is gripping Democrats by the throat.

Better — in my view — to act with clarity and confidence of what matters to Democrats, of what we stand for, of the vision and priorities that distinguish us from Republicans, than to succumb to fear and a thousand doubts about electability.

Democracy, Tribalism

Senator Mitt Romney cast a politically courageous vote and stood forthrightly behind it

In an era of maximal partisanship, Mitt Romney was a lone vote against his party and against a vindictive president. The GOP base – activists and faithful primary voters – stands steadfastly behind that president, ready to mete out punishment to wayward elected officials. And the conservative media universe, over which Fox News Channel reigns, stands ready to rally that base – with invective and lies – to back up the president.

There is no discernable political advantage to prompt Romney’s decision. He can expect ridicule, condemnation, and vilification from Republicans, payback from the President, even threats to him and his family. And while Democrats may praise him, they won’t accept him as one of their own. As Romney has noted more than once, he has no followers in the GOP. He is standing alone and, apart from personal conviction that he is doing the right thing, there is little upside of any kind (other than serving as an example to his children and possibly gaining the distant recognition of history: neither significant motivators for U.S. senators).

Unlike most Republican senators, he may be able to weather opposition in Utah, which has had considerable affection for Romney and where Trump is less popular than in other deep red states. And he has the wisdom and perspective to understand that failing to win reelection, if he chooses to run again and loses, is hardly the end of the world. But it is undeniable that Senator Romney did not decide to condemn Trump’s shakedown of Ukraine because of any personal or political benefit that stance would offer.

At a time when the Christian right holds sway over a political party, while embracing a man whose life, character, speech, and actions are antithetical to the message of the Gospels, few Senators (in deciding to fall in line behind the President) invoked principles that in any respect conflicted with the political expediency of the moment.

Mitt Romney did so. And we have every reason – based on his life, character, speech, and actions – to take him at his word that he acted out of faith and conviction, that he made his decision because of a fundamental belief that it was the right thing to do for the constitution and the country.

The reason his statement reads in places like a condemnation of other prominent Republican senators is because he has articulated in a straightforward way the facts of the case and the principles behind his decision. This is another reason to praise him: he could have shrugged off making a candid statement and, like so many other Republicans, essentially invented a more convenient, palatable cover story – pulling his punches to de-emphasize Trump’s egregious misconduct. He didn’t. He spoke clearly and forthrightly.

In casting the biggest vote of his life, Mitt Romney’s decision was politically courageous. That’s as commendable as it is surprising and rare.  

2020 Democratic Primary, 2020 General Election, Democrats

“There’s only one moral imperative … and that is to beat Donald Trump” — James Carville

“There is only one moral imperative in this country right now and that is to beat Donald Trump. That’s the only moral imperative. It’s the only thing I wanna hear.” — James Carville, insisting that Democrats need to stop talking about “stuff that is not relevant,” … “goofy stuff,” … “exotic positions,” and address the pragmatic concerns of American voters, reflecting “the struggles that people go through…”

Then Claire McCaskill prompted these observations:

“We gotta decide what we wanna be. Do we want to be an ideological cult? Or do we want to have a majoritarian instinct to be a majority party?

I know where you stand, Senator, since you had to run in a Red State.”

“Right,” replies McCaskill.

“So, again, you and I know that 18% of the country elects 52 Senators. And the urban core is not gonna get it done.

What we need is power. You understand, that’s what this is about. Without power you have nothing. You just have talking points.”

Carville (convinced that a Bernie Sanders’ nomination, even if he won the White House, would likely result in Mitch McConnell keeping his majority in the Senate, in which case a Democratic president could get nothing done) believes that a candidate with appeal outside the urban areas (where most Democrats, especially those on the left side of the party, are clustered) would be more likely to lead to a big victory — including taking back the Senate. Note, in contrast to many ‘centrist’ critics of Sanders, Carville (a self-described liberal) is a fan of Elizabeth Warren and was rooting for her to get her campaign back on track.

2020 General Election, Donald Trump, Short & Sweet ... Short & Sour

Trump Job Approval at Personal Best 49%. Rising rating due to Republicans and independents – Gallup

WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump’s job approval rating has risen to 49%, his highest in Gallup polling since he took office in 2017.

The new poll finds 50% of Americans disapproving of Trump, leaving just 1% expressing no opinion. The average percentage not having an opinion on Trump has been 5% throughout his presidency.

Trump’s approval rating has risen because of higher ratings among both Republicans and independents. His 94% approval rating among Republicans is up six percentage points from early January and is three points higher than his previous best among his fellow partisans. The 42% approval rating among independents is up five points, and ties three other polls as his best among that group. Democratic approval is 7%, down slightly from 10%.

The 87-point gap between Republican and Democratic approval in the current poll is the largest Gallup has measured in any Gallup poll to date, surpassing the prior record, held by Trump and Barack Obama, by one point. — Gallup, “Trump Job Approval at Personal Best 49%,” February 4, 2020

Never mind impeachment or the Iowa Democratic Party’s debacle or tonight’s State of the Union message. The most significant political news of the day is public opinion as measured by that Gallup survey.