Manifesto for the Next Four Years

We Know What Needs to be Done

William Sundwick

Joe Biden can get there, with help from Congress. But it will take more than a historic landslide on November 3. It will take clear-eyed commitment from the American (and world) electorate – no equivocating, no shrugging off responsibility, no media “bothsidesism.”

There are things to be done. And there isn’t much time. Right now, in our COVID summer, we should start by acknowledging that old saying “politics is a contact sport” may mean virtual contact sport. Canvassing for voter registration and actual voting can still happen, selectively, and cautiously – but it is much higher risk than in the “Before Times.” Social media discussion groups, sub-Reddits, and email lists must pick up the slack. And nobody ever answers their phone anymore. But volunteer opportunities do exist in all these areas.

Polls currently provide supporting evidence that a well-managed Biden campaign, together with down-ballot help from the DNC, may well lead to that historic landslide. But I seem to recall similar confidence in 2016. We know how that went!

The Biden strategy thus far seems to be to let the President hang himself – minimize his own exposure. It seems to be working.

After Labor Day, however, more will be required. Nobody will get a “convention boost” this year since there will be no live Party Conventions. That goes for Senate and House candidates as well. The battle will continue to be waged largely in the media and virtual worlds.

Biden’s “Unity Task Forces” were a good idea. The 5-3 split on each of the six task forces, between Biden people and Sanders people, was a stroke of genius. Bernie was a full participant in naming members from the beginning. The Democratic Platform drafting process will apparently follow on their 110-page report – although the Platform, itself, won’t necessarily be drafted by the Task Forces. It still looks like the Overton Window has moved leftward since 2016. Clearly a step in the right direction. Enough to force Trump to make outlandish references to “socialism.” This is good. The more he says, the weaker he becomes.

But the campaign between now and November 3 is only the beginning. The real test is what happens after November 3, and after January 20. Expect to hear nothing more about “Build Back Better” after the election.

The Senate is critical. And it presents a higher bar for that potential historic landslide. Mitch McConnell can no longer be Majority Leader. Full Stop. Nothing good can happen if the Republican Party remains in control of one house in Congress. But it may just be possible to push through “compromises” if Democrats gain the majority and control the White House. Even with the filibuster remaining intact.

What are these things that need to be done in the next four years? They include:

1.       A radical response to the climate crisis – it will be primarily economic, the Green New Deal is the model – and it needs top priority in my opinion, considering the enormous scope, and the urgency of the timeline.
2.           Full commitment to scientific research in public health and epidemiology, as well as clean energy matters – science is society’s tool, not its enemy! The pandemic will not be defeated without it.
3.           Make police the servants of their communities, not an occupying army – there is now good momentum for this project, we need to make sure it does not abate.
4.           Reversal of tax policy from the Republican dominance of last forty years – taxes need to be PROGRESSIVE once again, not regressive – and they must openly seek redistribution of wealth, not just income and inheritance – this is the traditional turf of the Left, valid now more than ever.
5.            Most important targets for redistribution’s benefits are health care and education – we need to fully accept that health care is a right for everyone, cost no object – and we must accept that future generations will only thrive if the highest level of education, limited only by abilities and desire, is financially attainable for them – end the starving of public education, end the enslaving of tomorrow’s workers to a lifetime of debt!

This is my five-point manifesto. There may be others. But the political machinery needed to bring it to fruition needs to start with November 3 and continue through local elections held over the next four years – the next eight years. As clear as it has become that the Republican Party is unalterably opposed to these points, it is not at all clear that the Democratic Party is supportive of this manifesto. If there is reluctance among Democratic officeholders to embrace these points, they should be subject to primary challenges. The objective is nothing short of “regime change.”

Change is coming. It is most visible in the younger generation of activists and office seekers – they will ultimately prevail. But it needs to start at the local, grass roots, level. So far, I’m encouraged by the apparent openness of the Biden campaign. The next four years will likely present opportunities to move on some of my five points, but the legislative strategy will have to be subtle and adroit. The White House may listen, but that’s not a given. And Congress may be the biggest stumbling block – even in Democratic hands.

Prepare for a long struggle! It will extend beyond the next four years for sure.

Tara Reade, Casualty

William Sundwick

No, she didn’t get the timing right. She knew she only had weak corroboration for her accusation that Senator Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993, when she was a young staffer in his office.

Alas, it was too late to keep everybody that mattered, including the bulk of the mainstream media, from anointing Joe Biden as the presumptive presidential nominee in 2020. Bernie Sanders, her favorite in the primary, remained silent following her public accusation in late March. He endorsed the former Vice-President anyway. Elizabeth Warren, and every woman being considered by Biden as a potential running mate or cabinet member, jumped at the chance for a full-throated defense of his categorical denial – especially after he appeared on MSNBC May 1 to tell Mika Brzezinski, “It never happened. Never. Period.” Tara Reade’s strongest defense was the withering fire from a retreating Berniecrat crowd, growing fainter by the day, and some more substantive feminist voices like Kate Manne.

Then, Reade’s friend in California, Lynda LaCasse, came forward later, apparently unprompted, with a reasonably powerful endorsement of Tara’s story, which she related a few years after the alleged incident.

Even if some of the details that Reade stumbles over cannot be corroborated (like the Senate complaint about harassment in Biden’s office), “absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence,” as Kate Manne reminds us. This is not a legal proceeding, nor a civil case, but a classic case of survivors reliving trauma, after long simmering shame and embarrassment. This is what #MeToo was all about.

In any case, “Believe Women” never meant that all women always tell the full truth about their experiences, only that they be given the benefit of the doubt when they come forward. Tara Reade has been given that, and only a fringe has sought to defame her (notably, not Biden himself). Both she and her accused are presumed innocent.

But, as we know, truth often comes down to “he said, she said.” Some feminists have noted that Reade’s accusation accurately portrays who Biden really is – even if this specific case is dubious. Much in his public persona suggests he comes from an extreme patriarchal culture. His admitted “handsiness” and other behavior has made many women uncomfortable, even if falling short of sexual assault. Some have labeled him “creepy.” His presidential campaign is trying hard to focus on the alternate public image of “decent old Uncle Joe” – not difficult versus the twenty accusations his opponent faces!

And Biden’s defense is bolstered by a #MeToo postulate: “there’s never only one.” It seems that Reade is the only one, as no credible secondary victims have yet appeared -- after at least six weeks of non-stop media coverage of her allegation. But Christine Blasey Ford had no credible secondary victims either. The main difference between her case two years ago and Reade’s is that Blasey testified under oath and took a polygraph about what happened to her in high school. Reade has done neither.

Most of these ministrations about trying to determine the “truth” are irrelevant, anyway. The November election will be about far more critical issues. If proven true, Reade’s accusation would force the Democratic Party to tackle the unprecedented task of overturning duly certified primary results to replace Biden. The most likely result of that would be disarray and ultimate defeat for the Party in November. Is this Reade’s hope? It certainly is not the hope of her friend LaCasse – who still plans on voting for Biden.

If we conclude that Reade’s story is too flimsy to believe, she is still a casualty of the campaign. She should have anticipated this outcome. Maybe she did but chose her timing, regardless.

Power of Denial

William Sundwick

Under increasing pressure to deal with Tara Reade’s allegation of sexual assault, Joe Biden went on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to reiterate his campaign’s official position – flat denial. “It never happened.” The campaign had already sent appeals to supporters to not stray from that line.

Tara Reade shared her 27-year-old story only with a few intimates, until this March, when she went public on a podcast to announce that she was sexually assaulted in the halls of the Senate by then-Senator Joe Biden, for whom she worked as a junior staffer. The charge was old, and there is no documentary evidence to corroborate it, but three friends and a brother have come forward recently, following interviews from multiple investigative reporters.

So far, the only “evidence” for skepticism of Reade’s story is vague suspicion of her motivations, and some inconsistencies in her accounts.

Yet, the response from Biden’s supporters, especially potential running mates and cabinet appointments, implies satisfaction with the denial, often citing Biden’s past legislative efforts on behalf of women, especially the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Where does that leave the #BelieveWomen trope now?

The oblique support for Biden will likely persist. Deny, deny, deny is a time-honored political strategy. If fewer women turn out in November, they at least won’t be voting for Trump -- considering his even more egregious past behavior!

Deniability is still plausible. Biden’s campaign can reason its margins will still hold for myriad other reasons.

Most importantly: Biden remains the only thing standing between us and the apocalypse!

State of the Race

Is the Path to the Nomination Any Clearer?

William Sundwick

We’ve now had two real contests in the 2020 Democratic Presidential primary. There are still polls which we are told are scientifically designed and administered. But, finally, we’re getting down to actual voting. What have we learned so far?

After the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 11, it’s now safe to say that there are five top tier competitors awaiting Michael Bloomberg’s attempt to buy the presidency. It appears that the early states (IA, NH, NV, SC) will eliminate any other contenders – they’re already “suspending” their campaigns at an increasing rate. Super Tuesday on March 3 is the crucial date. My prediction is that we will, by then, have the top two contenders. But I cannot predict beyond that. Will it be a brokered convention in July?

As of now, these are the five top Democratic candidates for president by delegate count:

Bernie Sanders:  Seemingly the overall best bet to win the nomination – except for one glaring problem. He is opposed by the entire Democratic Party establishment! He has the most avid supporters, and they’re young – hence represent the future of the Party. He has the most money (except for the billionaires who are self-financing), and his “base” is probably the most diverse of any candidate’s. The only groups reluctant (or fearful) of getting behind him are the old folks and the affluent. One complication in his path to the nomination: those groups are over-represented among primary (and especially caucus) voters. Traditionally, they’re the ones who show up!

Pete Buttigieg:  After a substantial boost in both early contests – largely because of the arcane first and second alignment rules in Iowa, where he picked up the most support from “non-viable” candidates – Mayor Pete has recently benefited as the “unity candidate.”  He’s probably the establishment’s best hope now of countering Bernie. Old people like him as that “nice young man, and smart, too!” He hasn’t said anything that is too threatening to anybody. And, his supporters can claim to be “woke” because he’s gay with a fine husband. Some polling indicates that young, prosperous, college-educated white people are also included in Mayor Pete’s base.

Elizabeth Warren: Sadly, Liz came in a weak third in Iowa, worse in New Hampshire. News from her campaign was that she was pulling ads in Nevada and South Carolina. Those of us who count ourselves as her supporters felt we needed to step up, both financially and time commitment. She needed us. Her base is apparently white, well-educated members of what is known by Bernie supporters as the PMC (“Professional Managerial Class”). Of course, this group knows best what is good for the country – and must educate everybody else accordingly. My whole family (two generations) are Warren supporters. But, alas, we may need to “check our privilege” – perhaps we don’t represent the heart and soul of America?

Amy Klobuchar: Suddenly, after the New Hampshire primary, Amy has finally realized the “Klobmentum” that commentators have been predicting. Her third-place finish, very close to Pete, and ahead of both Liz and Joe, has caused us to re-evaluate her campaign. Not only does she rip the women’s candidate mantle from Warren but has now transcended her Iowa message of running for “President of the Midwest.” Her message seems to be a positive one: “You’re great people and I like you!” This contrasts with Bernie’s more negative: “Let’s fight the bad guys together!” Both appeal to unity, but positive phrasing often trumps negative.

Joe Biden: Only a few weeks ago, the RCP polling average had Biden on top. What happened? Well, in short, it was Iowa. The fact that he could only muster fourth place in that very selective contest seems to have knocked the wind out of his sails. When Joe gets knocked off his easy-going style he tends to stumble. So, New Hampshire became a make-or-break test for his campaign. It was not good. His base has been much like Bernie’s, except inverted in one critical metric – age! And, a large swath of the Democratic Party elite (the Hillary wing from 2016) have been all-in for Joe from the beginning.

None of the other candidates matter at this point. Andrew Yang, Deval Patrick, and Michael Bennet dropped out after New Hampshire, only Tom Steyer and Tulsi Gabbard remain -- who cares? They may be angling for book deals, cabinet posts, future Senate elections – but, surely, neither expect to be president, or even nominees. And, Mike Bloomberg waits in the wings as we consume his barrage of advertising, even generating polling support and endorsements.

While I believe that any of the top five candidates mentioned above can easily beat Trump, assuming they manage half-way intelligent campaigns in the general election, we did also expect that of Hillary Clinton in 2016. Much attention has been paid by the media to the different “lanes” that these candidates occupy. It seems the underlying assumption in such talk is that some collection of policy positions, an ideology, is a more probable path to victory in November than some other such collection. I respectfully disagree with that assumption. I think most voters don’t identify with specific policy positions nearly as much as they have emotional reactions to the public persona of each candidate. But, if there were different lanes of policy among the top tier candidates, the campaign thus far has made Bernie the sole inhabitant of the Left Lane – he expects to blunt the attacks from Republicans by openly identifying as a “Democratic Socialist,” much as Mayor Pete openly identifies as gay. Once somebody comes out, the attack can easily be turned against the attacker. Not as much an issue as many in the media fear.

Warren has lately sought to move away from that Left Lane, thinking that her main opponent is Pete rather than Bernie. If she is seeking to rise to a solid second choice, that may work. She can attain that status by splitting the difference between Bernie and Pete. Pete is very slippery, hard to pin down to a single lane. Biden clearly dominates the Right Lane among top Democratic contenders. His long history in the Senate, as well as his role in the Obama administration, may allow him to call himself “progressive” by the standards of 20 years ago, but times have changed. Nowadays, the eight years of Obama look like years of moderation and compromise, even a betrayal to some Democratic constituencies. As we know, much of this is due to the astounding lurch to the right of the Republican opposition. And Joe still thinks his strength is that he can “work with” Republicans. Amy echoes much of Biden’s posturing in this regard but may have better control over her messaging. She could be the compromise between Pete and Liz if she works on that.

What about Bloomberg and Tom Steyer? The billionaires self-funding their campaigns may yet be the wild cards in this race. But, with Bloomberg entering the debates because of a rule change, we may see further scrutiny of his profoundly undemocratic quest for the presidency – if that is even his goal. While all candidates are trying to sell themselves to the American people, there seems to be something especially crass about doing it mainly through purchased TV (and online) ads. How many Bloomberg rallies have there been in primary states? How many Bloomberg canvassers will we see knocking on doors? One wonders if Bloomberg isn’t more interested in protecting his fortune from a new regime in Washington than anything else.

If Super Tuesday does not produce a wide delegate lead for one or two candidates, then the prospect grows for a brokered convention. This would mean that the final Democratic contest would be on the convention floor in Milwaukee. Delegates would be traded among candidates, and starting with the second ballot, superdelegates again rear their ugly heads, as in 2016. Today, with only two contests involving actual voting behind us, it’s too soon to speculate on such an event. Iowa was essentially too close to call for the top two, and New Hampshire has produced what will likely be equally short-lived headlines and bounce. Nevada caucuses and South Carolina represent two more peculiar, non-representative, states. March 3 awaits.

Debate in Detroit

Is Bloody Combat What We Wanted?

William Sundwick

This is getting to be a spectacle. The second Democratic Presidential Debate was held July 30 and 31 in Detroit. It was marked by much more visceral combat than the first debate in Miami a month earlier. Was this by design? Or, has the temper of Democrats become more frayed over the last month?

The stage was set for the first night, Tuesday, featuring the two giants of the left, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, getting rolled by a gang of lesser polling moderates. Then Wednesday was to be the trial by fire for the titular leader of the pack, Joe Biden. CNN chose its team of moderators: Jake Tapper, Dana Bash and Don Lemon – experts in following the prescribed format emphasizing attack and rebuttal. That appeared to be the plan.

Mostly, it worked. If this is what you wanted, you got it in spades. Night One saw ideological divides drawn sharply between Sanders/Warren (who continued to live up to their reputed non-aggression pact) on the left versus the rest of the stage, except perhaps Pete Buttigieg and Marianne Williamson (independent paths?). Beto O’Rourke seemed lost, not knowing where to place himself. Rebuttals are always easier than affirmative cases in debating, so the dynamic clearly favored Sanders/Warren. Similarly, Night Two tended to favor Biden – he appeared more confident than during the first debate, at least when he kept on script. He even managed a barrage of counterattacks against his tormenters (especially Kamala Harris and Cory Booker).

But some read Biden’s flailing counterattacks as a sign of weakness -- exasperation at continuously playing defense. It seems unwarranted, considering he still holds the lead in polling. He probably got his greatest respite when other candidates chose, instead, to go after each other! Harris vs. Tulsi Gabbard was a good example, or Bill De Blasio vs. Julian Castro. Both secondary fights were initiated with a parrying thrust by one against the criminal justice record of the other. Gabbard had much of the same ammunition that Biden was also using against Harris’ prosecutorial history. Castro attacked De Blasio for refusing to fire the officer who choked Eric Garner to death. Neither target recovered well, and it served to take heat off Biden, at least temporarily.

CNN’s attempt to direct the tone of the debate toward more combat has been seen by some analysts, and candidates afterwards, as an unfair bias toward Republican talking points. If this was the tactic it was entirely appropriate though. Whoever wins the nomination will face those talking points in the general. Nevertheless, it’s not clear that the strategy succeeded in avoiding the obfuscation and deflection that many lamented in the Miami debate. Buttigieg grandstanded when he faced the viewing audience and advised any Republican office holders who might be watching to think of their “legacy” in the history books. Not sure any of them care. Harris declared that Trump’s tariffs are “betraying the American people.” That seemed a tad hyperbolic. But it did heighten the dramatic tension of the event.

Who emerged in an unexpected better position than they went in? Possibly Andrew Yang on Night Two? John Delaney scored a hit on Night One when he became the main spokesperson for the “revolt of the centrists.” And, looking at Sanders and Warren as a tag team, rather than opponents, on Night One was refreshing. One can even fantasize a Sanders/Warren (or Warren/Sanders) ticket in 2020. Their posture on Tuesday was more akin to a “good cop/bad cop” scenario (or A/B marketing tool) than anything else.

With more stringent entrance requirements for the third debate in September, it’s unlikely we’ll see more than seven or eight on stage in Houston. Looking at polling, and performance in Detroit, it seems most likely that we won’t have John Hickenlooper, Tim Ryan, or Jay Inslee to kick around. Likewise, Steve Bullock or Kirsten Gillibrand (she came across Night Two as the less confident “new kid” at the cafeteria lunch table trying desperately to be accepted by the “cool kids”). In any case, getting to 2% from 1% polling average AND doubling total donations is a high hurdle for many of the two dozen candidates.

Even with fewer on-stage appearances, the third debate on September 12 and 13, hosted by ABC, will probably continue to feature drama and spectacle over substance. But perhaps we can divine something about the candidates’ characters from that? Even if we can’t decipher their policy positions.

Read too late to cite in recent post: "And the First Debate Is History" -- but, I concur with author's feeling of disappointment in debate

And the First Debate Is History

What Did We Learn?

William Sundwick

On June 26 and June 27, the DNC sponsored its first Presidential Candidates’ Debate, in Miami. It was hosted by NBC/MSNBC/Telemundo. Who won? Who lost? Did we learn anything? Were there any memorable lines?

Twenty (alleged) candidates for president in 2020 faced off in the two-night spectacle. Everybody watching wanted to see blood on the floor. None of us wants to choose between twenty different politicians and other aspirants very much longer. We want fewer choices for next month’s debate in Detroit, fewer still by September, when the DNC qualifying requirements will be stiffer.

The moderators called the shots. It was Lester Holt, Savannah Guthrie, Jose Diaz-Balart, Rachel Maddow, and Chuck Todd – collectively representing the unspoken corporate interests of the Comcast/NBC Universal empire – who determined the questions to ask, and to whom they would be directed. The ten candidates first night were not asked the same questions as the ten on stage for night two. Yes, all candidates presumably had equal chance to raise their hand in rebuttal, or additional elaboration, so we were told. There was crosstalk and shouting at one another allowed (especially on night two).

The live audience was instructed to restrain themselves -- they laughed at that admonition.

But we still did learn some things. We learned that early labels on the left-right spectrum for the various candidates were probably too simplistic. We learned that some candidates preferred to define themselves by what they were against more than by what they were for. As a high school debater many decades ago, I remember the coach assuring me that the negative position is far easier to sustain than the affirmative (assigning me, a junior, less-skilled, debater to a negative team). And in a few cases, we learned about policy positions we hadn’t heard before, perhaps invented for the occasion?

Also, we learned some things about candidates’ personalities. This leads to the loaded question: what kind of personality makes for the most successful president? We think being forceful about your beliefs is important. Many candidates were. Others tried, with varying degrees of credibility, to sound committed to certain policies.  If they are practicing politicians, we have their voting records to check.

Overly cautious is not a good look in a forum like this. Some candidates sought to differentiate themselves from the main firebrand on the stage (Bernie Sanders) by appearing more cautious, or “realistic” (John Delaney), but that generally led to a performance that most viewers would consider a loss. Optics this year do not favor either caution or reasonableness!

My conclusion from two nights of the first Democratic Candidates’ Debate is that my preferences changed little. My ranking of the top three candidates going into the debates was: 1) Warren, 2) Sanders, 3) Harris. Coming out, only one ranking changed (tentatively): 1) Warren, 2) Harris, 3) Sanders. I guess I thought Kamala Harris’ prosecutorial zeal directed against Joe Biden was impressive. But not much else changed my mind.

That is not to say there weren’t some memorable comments by some of the candidates, which further clarified in my mind who they were but had little effect on my top picks. Here is a rundown of those moments:

Strength vs. caution: this includes clarity of positions.  Andrew Yang was clear in how he would finance his UBI of $1000/month for every American -- a Value Added Tax (VAT) -- okay, don’t care what that means, we know it’s used throughout Europe for public finance. Kamala Harris was emphatic when she stated: “nobody should have to work more than one job in order to provide food and shelter for their family,” cool. Joe Biden, on the other hand, was full of equivocation, getting bogged down in abstruse details of how universal health care would work (he’s against Sanders’ Medicare-for-All). Elizabeth Warren was asked what she would do about Mitch McConnell and the Senate blocking everything good, she replied “I have a plan for Mitch McConnell!” (to thunderous applause from audience). Also, there were statements that fit the old saw “Where’s the Beef?” (Walter Mondale’s 1984 debate line against Gary Hart) – e.g., Biden saying we need to “restore dignity to the middle class” (how?), Julian Castro is in favor of “common sense gun reform” (whatever),  Marianne Williamson invented a label for the absent health care system in the U.S., deriding it as “a sickness management system” (meaning what?), and Bernie Sanders totally ducked the hypothetical, “Roe v. Wade is overturned, what would you do?” (perhaps a bad question from Maddow?).

Most combative moments: these might be either good or bad – Warren asserted the need to FIGHT, make the Roe v. Wade SCOTUS decision LAW! Amy Klobuchar shouted out to Russia: stop stealing our elections!  Sanders’ closing statement asserted, “we need guts to make things change!”  Warren will “give Congress 100 days” to get their act together, then ban assault weapons by executive order. And, the most famous moment of the entire two nights: Harris’ full-frontal attack on Biden for his racist connections in the old Senate, considered by some pundits to be a game-changer so far in the primary.

Humor: sadly, not much humor was visible on either night, it would have gone far toward warming our hearts to some of these candidates. Eric Swalwell did illustrate something when he said “as a parent of a two-year-old,” changing dirty diapers often smelled better than serving in Congress – and Harris managed to interject some early levity into night two, when she managed to get the floor after a cross-talking shouting match saying “America doesn’t want to see a food fight” (setting the tone successfully for the rest of the evening). Humor might have been used to establish dominance of one candidate over another -- but wasn’t.

Magnanimity: some candidates feel they can trade on magnanimity, or generosity, as part of their persona. We saw examples of this personality trait (contrasting with current occupant of the oval office) from Kirsten Gillibrand, who took pains to describe her objection to Sanders’ program by saying “there’s a difference between capitalism and greed” (won’t dispute that).  Or from Harris, who gently admonished the president by saying he “could use his microphone in a respectful way.” Cory Booker offered on the first night that the “humane” way to deal with immigrants is not to criminalize their being here in the first place, thereby offering full support to Julian Castro, who had just floored the audience with his detailed proposal to repeal sec. 1325 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (which most of us never knew by its full legal name).

Winners and losers:  hard to say, but we always want to evaluate performances in such debates. The most new Twitter followers coming out of night one went to Julian Castro, but that may have been simply because he was less well-known around the country – and, he impressed viewers. The post-debate analysis after night two, by the MSNBC and CNN crews, was that Kamala Harris hit it out of the park when she landed squarely on Biden. Biden lost, Harris gained, but so did Warren after night one, and Buttigieg and Yang after night two.

Let’s be honest, we want to see some clear losers at this point – more than winners. If Williamson struck out on the second night, so be it. If Gillibrand or O’Rourke just seem too glib to be believed, fine. This is what we wanted from the debate. We don’t care about John Hickenlooper and his assertion that “socialism isn’t the answer” any more than Delaney’s belief in a “realistic” policy approach. We object to Tim Ryan’s characterization of anybody living on the east or west coast as part of the “elite,” out of touch with fly-over country. And, we don’t want the country run by a Silicon Valley tech geek who won’t even wear a tie on the debate stage (Andrew Yang).

Many of them probably hope for cabinet posts or book deals. That’s fine with me. I just want to see no more than five or six on stage by the third debate in September.

Great opinion piece from Slate -- follow-up to "2020 Campaign Notes" -- Joe Biden, the counter-intuitive candidate?

All Dem presidential candidates sorted by three strategies? a) unity (Biden's bi-partisan "epiphany"; b) revolution (Bernie's political mass movement); c) change the system (Warren's anti-corruption measures, seriously almost more left than Bernie!)

2020 Campaign Notes

Warp & Woof Has Opinions

William Sundwick

Twenty-two candidates and counting*. That’s where we stand with Democratic presidential contenders for 2020. The first Democratic debate will occur late next month, and the bar for inclusion on the debate floor is low: either a 1% showing in three different authorized polls or 65,000 unique donors spread over 20 or more states. As of May 9, 18 of the 22 declared candidates had met one or the other of these easy requirements. There will be two nights, with each candidate assigned randomly to one. That means the leading candidates may not even be on the stage together in Miami.

So, what are we voters to make of this field? Do we know enough to distinguish platitudes from real policy proposals? Does it even matter? Perhaps the best way to choose in the primary is that “gut feeling” about the candidate that policy wonks despise.

It seems clear that not all 22 of the contenders really think they could become the 46^th President of the United States. Reasonable guesses about their motivations for running include advancement of their respective political (or financial) careers, or possibly a cabinet post in the administration of whichever one of them wins. We will see maneuvering as the campaign season progresses, with lower-ranking aspirants dropping out and throwing their support to one of the leaders, hoping for whatever rewards this may provide. It might be fun here to speculate on where the candidates fit on the political spectrum.

As it looks now, trying to accommodate both their backgrounds and publicly announced policy positions, a rough sorting of leading candidates – from left to right – might look something like this:

Sanders à Warren à Booker/Williamson à Harris à Buttigieg/Castro à O’Rourke/Gabbard à Inslee à Gillibrand à Klobuchar à Bennet/Hickenlooper à Biden/Delaney

Only 16 names appear in the schema above. Among the others:

•           Andrew Yang has made a splash with a fervent defense of UBI (Universal Basic Income, a set amount of money payed out to every citizen, no work requirement, via monthly check),
•          Mike Gravel (88-year-old former Senator) has a campaign run by two teenagers based on dismantling U.S. imperialism,
•          Tim Ryan and Seth Moulton (two Congressmen who opposed Nancy Pelosi for Speaker),   

•       E ric Swalwell (another Congressman who is trying to capitalize on his cozy relationship with MSNBC hosts, and focus on gun control),
•           Wayne Messam (mayor of Miramar, Florida – a bigger city than South Bend – and he’s African-American).

All of these are probably best seen as quirky opportunists, devoid of a solid place in the left-right spectrum.

Without going into nitpicking about how I came up with my idealized spectrum, it’s worth noting that none of the major candidates, except perhaps the two front runners, Sanders and Biden, see any advantage in clearly articulating where they see themselves on this spectrum. Bernie is happy to be the darling of the Left. Biden is happy to anchor his support among older “moderates.” They both believe that victory in November 2020 will belong to whomever can capture that respective territory. The rest aren’t so sure, so they appear to shift ground from speech to speech, interview to interview. That makes it difficult to place them on a spectrum.

Nobody knows the most “electable” posture for a candidate – it may not even be related to any policy positions. It may come down to who they are, not what they propose. It seems supporters of one candidate or another will be totally convinced that THEIR candidate is MOST electable. Polls show a range of results for one-on-one matchups against Trump, but they tend to defy easy analysis. Most major candidates can probably beat Trump. If there is a bias toward beauty vs. age, that certainly doesn’t explain Sanders and Biden sitting on top of those polls. Youngsters Buttigieg and O’Rourke do relatively well, but they’re not at the top. Gabbard has gone nowhere.

A presidential landslide would be good. That is what’s needed to retake the Senate. More Republican incumbents this time will be facing re-election contests (22), fewer Democrats (12). Unfortunately, most of those Republican Senators have well-established constituencies, difficult to break unless an extremely strong top-of-ticket Democrat is nominated in Milwaukee. Mitch McConnell is up for re-election in 2020, and could be defeated even if the Senate doesn’t flip.

Should impeachment be on the table before the election? Speaker Pelosi, as of now, is reluctant to embrace it. Yet, some presidential candidates are endorsing it (Warren, Castro, Harris, Moulton). Of course, the presidential candidates saying they support impeachment means it’s not an issue if they win! Perhaps that’s why it’s easy for them to support it, but hard for the current Speaker of the House.

Warp & Woof has opinions on the election campaign. Rule number one: don’t worry about labels. Republicans will call any and all Democratic policy proposals “socialist” – Bernie’s embrace of the “Democratic Socialist” label means nothing to voters, unless they plan on voting Republican anyway. And, his supporters need only point to real leftist commentators who dispute that he even is a true-blue Democratic Socialist (more a social democrat, in the European mold). But, if your middle class, or upper middle class, sensibilities cause you to feel funny about a socialist label, there is always Elizabeth Warren, who has virtually indistinguishable policy proposals from Bernie (even more radical, in some cases), but claims, like FDR, to be “saving capitalism.”

Moving rightward along the idealized political spectrum above gets you nothing except hedging your bets on what focus you want. It’s more a matter of style than substance. Jay Inslee, for instance, is the “climate” candidate, but his detailed climate plan* differs little from Beto’s, introduced a few days earlier. Booker is the “cities” candidate, but we all know that the American economy relies on more than urban production -- if there’s more money concentrated in cities it’s because that’s where the capitalists are. Gillibrand wants to be the “women’s” candidate, but half of us are men. Pete is very slick – but who is his base? (If well-educated LGBTQ folks, fine, but how many of them are there?)

Warp & Woof thinks it’s obvious that going all the way to the right, for Uncle Joe, would be tantamount to an abject surrender to Republicans – even if he wins. He didn’t represent the best of the Obama years, but was likely a “balance” V.P. candidate.

*latest news, since drafting this post, Montana governor Steve Bullock and New York mayor Bill De Blasio have announced (#23 and #24, respectively). Neither of them has earned a place in my spectrum yet. And, Jay Inslee has revealed a second climate plan, more comprehensive than the first, falling just shy of where the Ocasio-Cortez/Markey Green New Deal landed in February.