Campaign 2020

Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Campaign 2020

Post by Sabin »

Cool.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Campaign 2020

Post by Big Magilla »

Mueller Report - "no conspiracy, no obstruction" - what a crock.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Campaign 2020

Post by Mister Tee »

Sabin wrote:
Big Magilla wrote
Republicans may waver during the primary but they will fall in line on election day. Maybe a small number will sit out. But his supporters (of which there are more than we'd like to think) have never liked anybody more.
Which is why I have little sympathy for the Republicans who claim their party has been hijacked by Trump. Their base -- the great majority of their voters -- have been Trump Republicans long before Trump. The party regulars have been kidding themselves that this base was an inconsequential part of the coalition, easily bought off by being thrown a little red meat (and how often have you heard the mainstream press dismiss some particularly outrageous comment with "Oh, that's just red meat for the base"? -- as if a similar pander to the left part of the Dem coalition would ever be given a pass). The fact is, that base is like the Little Shop of Horrors plant: grown ever bigger and more ravenous with every drop of blood it's been provided. And it's now eaten the party whole.

A word about the Mueller report, which exists as an entity but not yet as an observable one. The best comment so far comes from Obama guy Ben Rhodes, who said "My take on the Mueller report is, I'd like to read the Mueller report so I can have a take on it". But, as the great reporter Jack Germond used to say, journalists don't get paid to say "I don't know", so the airwaves have been filled with people making definitive pronouncements. And, surprise surprise!, they think Trump has been totally exonerated. Much like the way they declared Election Night 2018 a bust for Democrats at 9pm -- or, going back, called the Iraq War a smashing success at the two-week mark -- our "liberal media" has gone all in for the GOP with no evidence.

I don't pretend to know any more than you. But I'm willing to wait for the facts of the report before I decide what it means. And if I note anything as portent, it's that the guy who spewed 50 tweets a week ago today hasn't mustered one today -- if he thought was home free, I can't hep thinking he'd be gloating in full-throated fashion.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Campaign 2020

Post by Sabin »

Big Magilla wrote
I think I've finally figured out these dyed-in-the-wool Republicans who will support Orange Hitler no matter what.
On a news podcast I listen to, I recall somebody saying the following and it really stuck with me: "Being a Republican must be so exciting because every day you get to wake up and find out a new thing that you believe."

Republicans may waver during the primary but they will fall in line on election day. Maybe a small number will sit out. But his supporters (of which there are more than we'd like to think) have never liked anybody more.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Campaign 2020

Post by Big Magilla »

I think I've finally figured out these dyed-in-the-wool Republicans who will support Orange Hitler no matter what.

Basically, they don't care about anyone or anything other than themselves or maybe their immediate families. They may have served in the military, but they don't give a rat's ass about John McCain or any other prisoner of war. Like Trump, their heroes are the ones who weren't captured or, if they were, the ones who escaped. They think McCain was a wimp for refusing to be released unless his men were released with him. They think he should have gone all John Wayne (or some other action hero) on them, accepted the release, turned around, grabbed a gun and shot his captors dead, then released the other men as if what happens in action movies happens in real life.

They care about abortion until their own 14-year-old daughter or grand-daughter gets knocked up, then it's "get rid of the thing" and back to condemning anyone else who gets an abortion after her.

The great "undecided" may tsk-tsk about some of the things Orange Hitler says, but when they're in that booth next year, they're as likely to pull that lever down in his favor with only one thing on their minds, pie-in-the-sky trickle down "tax cuts", as they are to vote for a Democrat with ideas of saving the world for everyone else.
danfrank
Assistant
Posts: 908
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Fair Play, CA

Re: Campaign 2020

Post by danfrank »

Tee, I like your analysis. I won't disagree with anything you said, and want to emphatically second what you said about Democrats winning with fresh, exciting choices. I've been touting the "fresh face" path to victory with all my friends, and with the plethora of candidates for this cycle there are plenty of possibilities. I think that having the right amount of experience is becoming less and less important these days as far as electability goes. Beto clearly fills the bill, but so could Kamala, Buttigieg or undeclared candidates such as Stacey Abrams or even Andrew Gillum (I could listen to him talk all day). If Buttigieg gets enough airtime, I say he could make a dent. There's something completely refreshing about that guy. Of course money and DNC backing are huge factors, so the lower-tier candidates would have quite the uphill climb.

A couple other thoughts: A good friend's sister was a staffer for Amy Klobuchar, and says she's both crazy and an absolute nightmare to work for. If she does well early on, look for those stories to resurface with even more damning tales of her abuse. Lastly, Tee, I fervently hope you're right about Mueller turning up hard evidence against Trump. The media keeps leading us to expect that we've pretty much already learned everything that the Mueller report will turn up. On one hand the anticipation is killing me; on the other I find some solace In knowing that he's taking his time to do a thorough job.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Campaign 2020

Post by Sabin »

OscarGuy wrote
I know she probably won't run, but would a Claire McCaskill have any shot?
Prob not. What is her base? Voters who want a white woman who feel that Amy Klobuchar isn’t centrist enough?
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Campaign 2020

Post by Big Magilla »

Tee is right on all counts. I agree with everything he has said so far.

The only thing I would add is that it's not enough for the Dems to win the Presidency. They must keep the House and take back the Senate and this time don't allow Republicans to muddy the water on their proposals in the name of bipartisanship which is something the Republicans only support when it favors their agenda.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Campaign 2020

Post by OscarGuy »

I know she probably won't run, but would a Claire McCaskill have any shot?
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Campaign 2020

Post by Mister Tee »

To answer Wes' first question: I like Stacey Abrams plenty, but she just offers more of what the field already has a ton of: charismatic figures light on resume. Some of these people need to be looking at the many other important but lower-level jobs coming up next year. Specifically: Abrams is the clear choice to run for GA Senate. Her obviously strong base, boosted by presidential year turnout and (we hope) a pro-Dem environment, could put her over the top. I hope that's the decision she'll make.

I'd planned on leaving the discussion of the Keys till tomorrow, since it's complicated, but the Lichtman piece that Sabin dropped makes me feel like I need to respond at least somewhat now.

At the risk of being that jerk on the movie line in Annie Hall who tries to explain McLuhan to McLuhan...I have to say, I don't know what Lichtman is doing these days.

Start with 2016. Late Fall, he dropped the bomb that Trump would win because Gary Johnson was polling 6-8%, which would cost Hillary a sixth and decisive Key (significant third party vote, defined roughly as 5% or more). At the time, I argued he was disputing his own theory, because, in the 1992 version on the book I read, he had said if Jesse Jackson ran as a third-party candidate, it would clearly mark a split in the Democratic party, and thus wouldn't count against the incumbent Republicans. Since Gary Johnson had been a Republican governor, and was chiefly serving as repository for Never-Trump Republicans (including Jeb Bush, who announced he was voting for him), I thought he clearly qualified as this kind of exception. (In fact, tangent: I'd argue that it was the movement of too many of those unhappy Republicans from Johnson to Trump in the final ten days that made the fluky election outcome possible -- Johnson at 8% might have ensured Hillary's win).

In any event, Trump was named the winner, and those in the media who followed Lichtman gave him credit for predicting it. But they were wrong to do so...because Lichtman's system clearly claims to predict the winner of the POPULAR vote, so he'd have had to have predicted Hillary, not Trump, to get a correct score...

...except he was right after all, because, on Election Day, Johnson's vote dwindled to 3.27%. Even if you lump together all Johnson/Stein/McMullin votes, they still don't quite get to 5%. Meaning the Key stays positive, and Hillary wins the popular vote -- a correct prediction. But most people continue to read the outcome the incorrect way, and I haven't seen Lichtman forcibly correct anyone.

On to the present:

Lichtman, like so much of the press, seems determined to read more into Pelosi's statement than she said. Pelosi
was pretty clearly giving a right-this-minute reading, but LIchtman appears to be reading it as a Sherman-esque denunciation. For the record, I fully expect there WILL be impeachment -- as someone said on MSNBC this very evening, all the House committees are effectively running impeachment inquiries. And Mueller's report is very likely to accelerate that process.

But more to the point: does Lichtman truly think that ONLY an impeachment can mark the scandal Key as negative? Isn't it clear from all polling -- polling that shows majorities view the president as a liar and someone who's committed crimes pre-presidency (with a 50-50 split on crimes in the White House) -- that most voters view Trump as a walking scandal? Lichtman I guess is proud of the fact that he predicted Reagan for re-election while Reagan was sitting with approvals in the 40s -- but Reagan had a deep recession dragging his numbers down. What could account for Trump's low numbers but his personal scandals? I think the scandal Key has already fallen -- but it may turn out somewhat like 2008, where a lot of us (backed by polling) kept saying the economy was in recession, but it took the September meltdown to finally convince everyone. Events between now and November '20 should make the scandal Key's status clear to all.

As for the rest: I certainly agree with Lichtman that three other Keys (Congressional mandate, foreign policy success and charisma) are already negative, but I'm at a loss how he doesn't view another (major policy change) equally gone. Apart from passing yet another tax cut for the rich -- an immensely unpopular one, at that -- the administration has failed at getting anything done. If the crime bill wasn't enough to secure this for the Clinton administration, I fail to see how Trump isn't down another Key.

The remainder of the Keys are up in the air, and to some degree depend on things I mentioned below. If there's a recession during the campaign, crucial Key 5 falls. If the downturn is significant enough, it can cost Key 6 (long term economy) as well. Right now, that Key is positive, but stay tuned. There's also always the possibility of a true foreign policy fiasco -- some would argue the North Korea pas de deux has already brought us there. But, with this gang that couldn't shoot straight in charge, there can always be worse.

Then there are the "what if the worst happens?" scenarios: if Trump should be impeached/removed, there's no guarantee the party would accept Pence as automatic candidate (if, indeed, Pence doesn't go down with him). A challenge in the primaries would knock down Key 2, and a new candidate would invalidate the incumbency Key. And, if Trump's diehard supporters take it hard enough, we could see social unrest at a level that would forfeit another Key. (This latter could happen even if Trump isn't removed -- the mere threat of his being ousted could cause right-wing violence to erupt -- as it has, in small doses, already.)

And of course the Dems have every possibility of choosing a charismatic standard-bearer next year, which would knock down another Key.

Bottom line?: there's no locking in a lot of this till probably a year or more from now. But there's certainly not much cause to offer a doom-for-Dems forecast based on (I'd argue) a misreading of a Pelosi quote. So, I repeat: I don't know what Lichtman's doing.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Campaign 2020

Post by Sabin »

Funny story, Wes. Allan Litchman just weighed in yesterday in the ominously titled op ed: Did Democrats forfeit 2020?

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/43 ... rfeit-2020

I'll just select one paragraph.

"The keys system is based upon the proposition that presidential elections largely turn on the strength and performance of the party holding the White House. The model identifies 13 true or false questions known as the keys. When the answers to five or fewer of these questions are false, the incumbent party wins. When six or more are false, the incumbent party loses. The incumbent Republicans have lost only three keys. Their loss of control of the House of Representatives cost them the mandate key. The lack of any significant foreign policy triumph forfeits the foreign and military success key. Although Trump appeals passionately to a minority of voters, he lacks the broad national appeal necessary to secure the incumbent charisma and national hero key."
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Campaign 2020

Post by OscarGuy »

Two questions:

1) What do you think about Stacey Abrams who is currently mulling a run?

2) How do the Keys currently play out in this presidential election year? I know the guy kept hemming and hawing between Clinton and Trump two years ago, but I wonder if they would be more obvious this year.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Campaign 2020

Post by Mister Tee »

For those who saw the title of this thread and thought “Way too soon; no one’s voting for almost a year”: 1) I agree with you, but 2) tell it to those I-forget-how-many who’ve already declared candidacies (and I was set to start this thread even before the Texas Dynamo entered the race yesterday morning). My decision to go ahead sprang from this: there are going to be thoughts/theories/observations about various Democratic candidates over the span between now and when Iowa votes. Rather than have them get lost in the already elephantine Everything is Great and Amazing thread, I thought it made sense to create a designated spot.

To start with a general lay of the land: Trump is, as of this moment, an exceptionally vulnerable incumbent. He has sat at approvals from 38-42% throughout his entire presidency (though every time he inches above that in a single outlier poll, the press goes into full re-election orgasm). He’s earned these low numbers solely through personal effort, as national conditions (especially economic) would suggest at worst break-even ratings. He is the most personally reviled president I can remember, outside of maybe Nixon at the very end. Democrats won the House vote last Fall by 8.6% (nearly 10 million votes), which is 1) a decent measure of where the country stands on the Democratic/Republican divide just now and 2) 1.3% wider than Obama’s 2008 margin, which we may recall delivered a solid electoral thumping. In fact, the 44.8% GOPers scored last year was lower than their presidential percentage in either 2008 or 2016, with very little third-party siphoning. And this happened in good economic times, with Republicans turning out at high rates – which is to say, this wasn’t a fluky result based on recession or skewed turnout favoring one side: this was the gestalt when both Democrats and Republicans were motivated.

There are two ways this gestalt can change by next November. The first would be unmistakably bad for Republicans: there’s no way the economy can be better for them, but it’s easy to imagine it being worse. The cyclical nature of expansions has suggested a slowdown for a while now, and it’s hard to see it holding back much longer – especially now that the stimulus of the tax cut (however little it provided) has worn off. Presidents running for re-election in recessions have always struggled; a slowdown next year could put an already unpopular president into Herbert Hoover territory.

The other thing that can change is, Trump might not be the candidate. Most DC pundits have been swatting away this possibility for two years, and, despite all that’s emerged, they continue to assume the most benign report imaginable from the Mueller team (they’ve also, I’d say deliberately, misrepresented the Pelosi quote the other day -- highlighting the soothing “I’m not for impeachment” while ignoring the pregnant dependent clause “Unless we find clear evidence”). I continue to believe what Mueller will report is worse than most imagine; that he’ll present a case so ironclad it‘ll penetrate even the wall-of-resistance that has been the GOP Congress. (I was of course around during Watergate, and, back then, for the longest time it looked like the Republicans would never abandon Nixon – until, suddenly, they did.) In any case, we all have to wait on Mueller before we can assume the match-up is set on the GOP side.

But put aside the argument over whether this happens (or how it’d come about). Just consider the question, would this being the case help or hurt the Democratic cause? Some would probably argue in the negative: suggesting that Trump as boogeyman was the great motivator for last Fall’s turnout, and, absent that, Dem turnout could taper off. It’s not impossible, at least at the margins – though I’d counter that 1) at this point, the GOP top-to-bottom is so identified with Trump that he’d be on the ballot whether physically or not; 2) Dems know they screwed up not turning out in 2016, and they’re not likely to repeat the error so soon; and 3) do we really think Mike “Rapture or Bust” Pence wouldn’t scare voters in roughly equal numbers? And there’s an opposite side to that argument: that Trump himself is the great motivator of GOP turnout; without him (and his glee in openly defying all norms), Republican participation could revert to the moderate level of the McCain/Romney elections – or worse, if Trump loyalists are discouraged by defeat. Republicans after Nixon’s resignation suffered their worst political night in a generation, because embarrassed Nixon supporters stayed home. Imagine last Fall’s result, only with 10-15% fewer Republican voters showing up. That would have led to a 50-60 House seat gain rather than 41, and likely capture of the Senate.

Bottom line: it’s very likely the Dems are in excellent position to take back the White House next year. Those who’ve followed me over the years know that I think the state of the incumbency has way more to do with election outcomes than any party nominee – it just isn’t the case that ONLY Candidate X can win the election (or that Candidate Y can’t win no matter what). But, of course, there are differences in the amount of enthusiasm the party nominee can gin up, and it’s worth considering who’s most promising in that regard.

Let me start by saying, this is an amazing Democratic field, overall. Back in the 80s, the situation in the party was so moribund, we got excited seeing boomlets form around people like Bruce Babbitt. Here, it’s the opposite: so many strong candidates are in the race, it’s like looking at the current Yankee line-up – knowing whoever’s batting eighth or ninth might have hit clean-up not long ago. You can even find candidates way down the list – second/third tier, like Inslee or Buttigieg -- who are terrifically smart and engaging, and in another era might have had potential to challenge for the nomination.

But we do have a very strong A-Team, from whom the eventual candidate will almost surely be selected. I presume people here have individual thoughts and favorites. I offer my observations here – all subject to change, and all presented with the proviso that I’d vote for any of them over Trump, Pence, or any Republican. (Except Tulsi Gabbard. She’s a horror, and -- convince me otherwise -- probably Putin’s top choice.)

Start, I guess, with the two guys who lead the polls – though it should be noted that, at this point in 2003, Joe Lieberman led polling with a similar mid-20s number, and his high-water-mark in actual voting was a three-way tie for third place in New Hampshire.

Finding undeclared-but-assumed-in Joe Biden at the top of the list is disorienting for whose us who’ve watched him in his earlier hapless campaigns. It’s not as if Biden is suddenly a better candidate. His current position seems based on two things: the perception of him as closest to Generic Democrat, with appeal to the-lost-white-working-class; and, most important, his association with the beloved-in-the-party Obama administration. In fact, I’m reminded of the 1988 Republican primary, where Bob Dole, frustrated at his inability to defeat George HW Bush, said “I can beat George Bush, but I can’t beat Ronald Reagan.” Bush used his position as VP to successfully sell himself as the continuation of the Reagan presidency, and Biden is doing something of the same vis a vis Obama. Biden wouldn’t be a bad candidate – he’s always had personality, strikes most people as genuine, and would mostly stand up for the prime party issues. But…let’s not pussyfoot around: he’ll be 78 on Election Day – older than Reagan was at retirement. I know, people are living longer, 80 is the new 60…but that’s a serious issue that will, at least subliminally, come up at some point. I also question the calculus people seem to be using to justify the candidacy: that it’s necessary to play it extremely safe – a prevent defense – to maximize the chance of beating Trump. My observation is, Democrats haven’t done very well when they’ve gone with “safe” choices: Mondale (compared to Hart), Dukakis, Kerry, even Gore and Hillary (both of whom “won”, but not by enough). Dems seem to win when they make a bold, fresh, exciting choice: Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Obama. Biden is in fact a counter-historical choice.

Age is also a problem for Bernie Sanders, though far from his only one. His current mid-20s polling is well off the 43% he got in 2016 voting, suggesting 1) he’s lost some support (I know people who voted for him in early primaries but were livid with him by the end) and 2) some of his vote was simply Not Hillary. I would find Sanders hardest of the legit candidates to work up a vote for -- both because I don’t consider him really qualified for the job, and because his very presence causes many to re-litigate the 2016 primary, an utterly useless exercise. He should do decently in early voting, with a wide field allowing for smallish plurality victories, but it’s hard to see him expanding his numbers enough to win majorities once the field’s been winnowed. I also wonder if his (losing) coalition from 2016 might suffer from defections: he’ll hold onto his leftiest voters, but that youth brigade that gave him his second wind seems prime hunting territory for Beto.

Which I guess brings me to Beto, though I’ll need a few weeks of him on the trail (and resultant polling) before I decide if he rates such a high spot, even just in early speculation. He sure seemed a fascinating figure last Fall, one Central Casting might have designed: Charismatic Democratic Candidate. And the excitement doesn’t appear to have dimmed any: he’s getting the kind of celebrity treatment Obama got a decade ago, pre-presidential run. O’Rourke’s resume is clearly quite abbreviated for someone viewed as serious possibility, even compared to Obama/Carter/Kennedy. (If he had just a bit more -- say, a full Senate term under his belt -- he might be unstoppable.) But even as is, I don’t question his going for it now. As Obama said to friends in ‘06/’07, it’s hard to imagine the buzz getting any louder, and sometimes you have to capitalize when you can. And, as far as the lack of experience thing: an awful lot of Democrats will rightly say, last time around we nominated a wildly qualified candidate, and all we heard from certain voters was how they couldn’t connect with her (enough of whom stayed home that we ended up in hell). Bill Clinton’s famous line comes into play: “Democrats want to fall in love; Republicans just want to fall in line”. Beto, whatever his shortcomings, seems someone Dem voters could fall in love with.

Donnie Deutsch, a regular on Nicole Wallace’s MSNBC show, keeps advocating a Biden/Beto ticket as unbeatable – which, if nothing else, underscores the belief of aging white men that white men are always the answer (ignoring that the most successful presidential candidate of this half-century was black). But the Dem field this year is so diverse – and not engineered to be that way, but teeming with qualified candidates who happen to offer diversity – that it’s hard for me to believe someone who isn’t a white man won’t end up on the ticket (and I’m not ready to say in which slot). For me, the most compelling of these at this moment is Kamala Harris. She has, if not full-on charisma (the jury’s out, there), at worst an exceptionally direct, vivid speaking style that communicates ideas in easily digestible form. She has a lack-of-experience handicap similar to Beto’s, though the fact that she’s a Senator (and WON her race) puts her a rung above him in that regard. It’s of course possible she’s running a bit ahead of herself – that her natural time will be four or eight years on – but she has nothing to lose by being out there now, and I could easily see her making the ticket.

Cory Booker also strikes me as having significant connecting ability, and I expect him to do well in early primaries. There’s queasiness about some of his economic positions – some of us won’t forget him half-defending Bain Capital in 2012 – but he’s staked out plenty of bold progressive positions to offset that. It may come down to how much of the black vote he can corral in the primaries – with Harris directly competing, and others hoping to get a slice – and, as far as the VP possibility, what kind of balance the ticket needs. But he’s another candidate I could happily support.

Kristen Gillbrand seems like she should be a more popular choice: she’s a two-term Senator, with a strong enough media persona – meaning she’s one of the few satisfying both the policy and personality criteria. But she’s languishing in polls, and I think she has her Machiavellian move against Al Franken to blame. I have no interest in re-litigating that sorry incident – largely because I find people taking different sides on the issue can’t even agree on what the facts of it are. But I can say that moment was divisive, and, folded into the fact that Gillibrand transformed from a right-of-center Dem when an upstate NY representative into down-the-line progressive as Senator, makes some see her as opportunistic. Again: given a choice between her and Trump, she’d get my vote without hesitation. But I don’t see her as near the strongest choice.

Elizabeth Warren, too, seems like she should be a stronger candidate: she’s philosophically a Bernie Sanders, but one with accomplishments that back up her rhetoric. Warren’s problems (as reflected in poor poll showings) are, as I see it, two-fold: 1) she seems to have very poor political instincts (the right-wing flogging of the Native American controversy was ridiculous, but her decision to not only release a flood of data, but to do it within a few days of last Fall’s election, showed a tone-deafness that stunned me); and 2) her schoolmarm persona is almost certain to be off-putting to those voters (largely male) who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary in 2016. I LIKE Warren, and admire much of what she fights for…but when I look at her, I don’t see a successful presidential candidate.

I hear some people touting Amy Klobuchar, and, I have to say, I don’t know what they’re thinking. Not that there’s anything wrong with Klobuchar as a Senator – she’s got a mostly liberal (though cautious) record, and we could do worse than have her making Oval Office decisions. And I don’t care if she eats her salad with a comb, or yells at her staff (though someone I trust tells me she’s a genuine horror to work for; that the criticism was not sexist but utterly fair). My issue with Klobuchar is she doesn’t have the personality to compete on the big stage. She’s a competent but colorless contender of the Dukakis variety. Again, if she was the choice, I’d have no problem casting a ballot for her. But it’s like having a choice of casting one of Hollywood’s best actresses, and opting instead for a bland sitcom star. We can do better.

Julian Castro, and the aforementioned Inslee and Buttigieg, are perfectly likable candidates, but they feel a bit minor-league compared to the competition. And John Hickenlooper is 1) running on a ridiculous “I’ll sit down and work it out with Mitch McConnell” fantasy and 2) would serve the party much better by running for Senate against Cory Gardner.

And that’s my ground-zero take on the race. Much will shift in both the year ahead (I doubt all these folks survive even to Iowa) and in the months following. But this should suffice as conversation-starter.
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events”