What if They Gave A Revolution But Nobody Came?

Bernie Sanders wanted a revolution but it appears that no one read the memo announcing it.
The hallmark of the Sanders’ presidential campaign was to defy conventional wisdom held by mainstream political science and political operatives.  This wisdom depicts American public opinion and voters as plotted along a bell curve from political left to right, with the median voter at the center.  The theory says that most voters are in the political center and that the battle for victory in presidential elections is to move to the center and capture the five or so percent of the electorate who are swings, especially in the critical presidential swing states that will determine the electoral college victory.  This model recognizes that perhaps only about 55% of the electorate votes and that it would be extremely difficult to bring new voters into the voting booth.
Sanders’ campaign challenged that.  The allegation is that the electorate is less of a bell curve and one that has become bimodal with a decreasing percentage of the voters located at the center.  The median voter still exists but largely is immaterial given the polarization and shift in American public opinion.  It is also a model that says that effectively swing centrist voters have  disappeared and racing to the center to find them is futile.  Better to try to mobilize many of the 45% who do not vote.  These are young people, people of color, urban liberals.  They chose not to vote because they do not like the political choices or policy options they are offered. 
These non-voters, the theory goes, face an empirical reality different from voters.  Capitalism has not been kind to Millennials and Gen Z.  They face a wealth gap, high college costs, high housing costs, and an expensive medical and health care delivery system their Silent, Baby Boomer, and Gen Xers do not confront.  They are America’s future.  Speak to their concerns and issues and you move American politics to the left and build a movement and party for the future.
There is a lot of truth and empirical evidence to support Sanders’ theory.  The electorate has become bimodal.  There is evidence of a decreasing number of swing voters and the reality of the median voter.  The political attitudes of Millennials and Gen Z are very different from that of Silents and Boomers.    The problem seems to be the last leg of the theory–mobilize the young and non-voter.  This is not happening for Sanders this year.
We know now according to Pew Research that the Millennials this election are now the largest generational voting bloc, surpassing the Baby Boomers.  Millennials and Gen Z together are now 37% of the electorate–the 2020 election is the beginning of the end of the political era for Baby Boomers, and perhaps the last hurrah for the Silents.  Yet so far, younger voters have failed to turn out in the caucuses and primaries, with voting rates less than what they were in 2016. On average, turnout among younger voters is about 25% less than it was in 2016.  Why is Sanders’ revolution not happening?
There are many reasons.  First, he is an independent running as a Democrat and his politics is not within the mainstream of the party and so far the Millennials and Gen Zs are not in control of the party.  In fact, they do not like the Democratic Party as presently constituted, seeing it still as controlled by the Boomers.  That alone could be hurting him.  Two, he has done a bad job expanding his political coalition, including a failure to bring on African-Americans.
Moreover, Sanders might have done so well four years for three reasons not present now.  By that, many voters did not like Hillary Clinton and a vote for him was a protest vote.  Two, Sanders did well in caucus states (because the smaller numbers in those states favored a fervent few) and there are fewer of them this year.  Three, the depth of Democratic Party anger to beat Trump is greater this year than four years ago.  Pragmaticism might be prevailing.
There are other possibilities.  Perhaps it is too soon for the revolution.  Godot has not arrived and we need to wait for more Boomers to die.  Some claim voter suppression, but there is not a lot of evidence that accounts for the dramatic voter downturn.  The rejection of electoral politics may be a factor, but rallies go only so far in an electoral political system.
Conventional political science and politicos may be wrong about the bell curve, median voter, and swing voter, but they still seem correct in regards to the difficulty of motivating the non-voter on the left.  Sanders is not crazy to look to bringing them into the political system to build a movement, yet his failure is that of not being able to figure out how to do that.  Where he and progressives need to go is to identify the real barriers to their disengagement and then determine the ways to bring them in politically.  Should the Democrats or a third party not do that longer term, America’s electorate will shrink dramatically over the next few years, perpetuating a base of voters who are not representative of the majority.

If you are Waiting for the Revolution, Please Pay Cash

You say you want a revolution?  Apparently it does not look like young people are ready for it yet.

Nor are others.  It will also not be televised or lived streamed on Youtube.
In two presidential campaigns Bernie Sanders has called for a revolution, yet not enough people, especially young, have shown up for it.  Legitimately Sanders is speaking to economic concerns that they and other feel–expensive college, gross economic inequality, flat wages, and high housing and medical costs.  Capitalism has not delivered for them and democratic socialism looks good.  Yet the hope for a revolution, with revolutionary consciousness brought to the masses from the outside via the revolutionary guard of Vladimir Lenin, spontaneously arising via Mikhail Bakunin, or built via an electoral movement via Eduard Bernstein, is not happening yet.
Overtime the moderate politics of the Baby Boomer era will end.  Already this is the first election in nearly 30 years where Boomers are not the largest generational voting cohort, the Millennials now are.  Perhaps, as some think, demographics are destiny and power will eventually shift along with the agenda.  That time has not yet arrived.  It is time for B.
Demographics are not destiny.  Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are learning that the hard way.  You do not get people’s vote simply because you have the right demographics–you still need the right message, right candidate, and strategy to win.  Clinton’s mistake in party was thinking she had the votes of the Midwest and did not have to campaign or ask for them, that is why she lost Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and almost Minnesota.  Conversely, Sanders’ has hoped that a new narrative appealing to the 45% of the electorate that feel disenfranchised would engage them to vote.  It too has failed so far to work, necessitating a plan B for him.
One of the first rules of politics is that you have to take power in order to govern and make policy.  If Democrats want to win they need to form a grand coalition to do that.  So far while Joe Biden and the moderate Democrats are putting together a coalition that includes suburbanites, women, and older African-American voters, they have done little to reach out to younger and more liberal voters.  They need them.  Without them it is a pipedream think there are many moderate Republicans for disaffected Trump voters who will vote for Biden.  Conversely, Sanders has done little to expand his base and get his agenda enacted.  A grand coalition is needed.
Consider France in 2002.  Jean-Marie Le Pen was the candidate of the far right National Front Party, a reactionary ultra-nationalist xenophobic party.  He was challenging Jacques Chirac,  President, and candidate of the Rally for the Republic Party.  Socialists detested Chirac.  But the prospect of staying home and electing Le Pen was too great and they threw their support to Chirac  who then won.
It is time for Democrats and Sanders supporters to reach their rapprochement if their goal is to win an election.  Moderates need to give on some issues such as free college or health care and Sanders needs to give up on his  absolutes too.  Both sides are playing intra-party winner take all politics that will do nothing more than make 2020 a repeat of 2016.  If they want to win, both sides need to work together to build the electoral college coalition to defeat Trump. Otherwise, while waiting for the revolution it might be better if both sides pay cash.

Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar: It’s my party (and I’ll do what I want to)

Lesley Gore’s famous lyrics It’s my party (and I’ll cry if I want to) are the words to define  the
Democratic Party on Super Tuesday, especially for its moderate wing.  They seem prepared to  take back control of the party in a way that prevents the voters from making the same mistake the Republicans did four years ago which unfortunately resulted in them winning the presidency with Donald Trump.
In my election law seminar I ask from a constitutional perspective who is the party?  Is it the candidates, party leadership and officials, convention attendees, primary voters, or general election voters.  The legal implications of who is the party are significant as they determine whose rights are recognized or prioritized.  Yet politically determining who is the party is equally an interesting question as it raises questions about orthodoxy and what it stands for and whose interests it represents.
For mainstream Democratic and leaders, Bernie Sanders represents an existential threat.  He is an outsider raising the spectre of democratic socialism and supporting the interests of younger people and marginalized voters who have felt they have no voice.  These individuals, including Millennials and Gen Zs, have not seen capitalism work. Their parents or they lost homes in 2008, wages have not gone up, home prices are out of sight, student loan debt is beyond manageability, and compared to other generations at a similar age, they have less wealth.    They like Sanders because he speaks to their reality.  He represents their Democratic Party, the one they want to join.  They are now the largest generational voting bloc in the US and want to assume the mantle of power.
The party they do not want to join is the one of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, and Peter Buttigieg. That is the party of the Baby Boomers, the affluent who have already made it.  It is of a Democratic Party who has Wall Street members such as former Goldman Sachs chief Lloyd Blankfein and self-described Democrat who said “It would be harder to vote for Bernie than for Trump.”
Establishment Democratic Party leaders, mainstream media, and the political science field are apoplectic over Sanders.  He challenges orthodoxy in so many ways.   He challenges the neo-liberalism of the Party over the last 40 years that pushed the white working class over to Trump.  He also questions the wisdom of the idea of moving to the center to win, contending that with the disappearance of the bell curve shape of the American electorate and the demise of swing voters, it may not make sense to move to the center any more and instead appeal to a new rising generation of voters.  Despite what Democratic Party moderates and mainstream political science contends, there is more evidence than they think that a Sanders’ strategy might work.  After all, it was these same people who thought Trump was impossible.
The point is that there is now a panic within the moderate wing of the Democratic Party.  Fearful of a Sanders’ takeover similar to a Trump takeover of the Republican Party, they are fighting back.  Now many of my political science colleagues scoff, contending that parties are weak and think super delegates would never pull a coup.  However, 70 years the political science profession advocated for stronger party government.    Ask any third party about how strong the two parties are for an answer.
What we are seeing on the eve of Super Tuesday with the withdrawal of Buttigieg and Klobuchar from the race is first recognition of the reality they were going nowhere.  Second, it was fear that their  party was going to Sanders and to those whom they perceived as outsiders.    If Sanders is Robespierre then what is happening now is the Thermidorian Reaction. 
The mainstream  is crying over where their party is going.

Bernie Sanders and the Revenge of the Superdelegates

Today's blog originally appeared in Counterpunch.

Unless Bernie Sanders wins enough delegates to capture the Democratic Party nomination on the first ballot, he is not going to be the nominee.  The reason will be that the superdelegates–those same people who were his wrath in 2016–will come back to deny him the nomination.

The Democratic Party’s superdelegates were a reaction to the 1970 McGovern-Fraser reforms that sought to open the party to the people.  Criticism after the 1968 Democratic Convention that party elites had too much control over the presidential nomination process–the proverbial smoke-filled backroom–led to a recommendation to create more political primaries. The goal was to let rank and file have more say on the party nominee.  Yet by 1980 party elites felt there was too much democracy within the Democratic Party; they, not the base, still knew best who the nominee should be and what the party should stand for.

In 1980 the Democratic Party’s Hunt Commission recommended that 30% of all the Democratic National Convention delegates be reserved for members of Congress and state party chairs and vice chairs.  These are the superdelegates.  That 30% figure was originally implemented at 14% but by 2008 the percentage rose to nearly 20%.  Their purpose was ostensibly to provide leadership, but in practice it was to maintain orthodoxy, serving as a check on primary voters who might make the wrong choice.

It was in 2008 that most Americans first heard of Democratic Party superdelegates.  When Hillary Clinton first ran for president in 2008 she was presumptively the presidential heir apparent, only to come in third in the Iowa caucuses and then fall behind Barack Obama in the delegate count.  Going into the Democratic National Convention she pulled one last move, convince the superdelegates to vote and throw the nomination to her.  She failed in that attempt.

Eight years later the ballot for the presidential nomination pitted again the presumptive presidential heir apparent Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. As it was true in 2008, she was heavily favored to win the nomination, with initial polls giving her a 50%+ lead over Sanders.  She again floundered, with Sanders racking but victories and delegates.  While superdelegates were in theory supposed to be uncommitted until the convention, Clinton secured the support of many, included them in her delegate count, and encouraged the media to report them in her totals.  The purpose was to create the illusion that she had a bigger lead over Sanders than she did as part of her effort along with the Democratic leadership, as revealed in leaked emails, to make sure Sanders did not win.

Criticism from the left wing of the Democratic Party forced one change post 2016.  Superdelegates could no longer vote in the first round at the national convention unless a candidate had a majority of the delegates secured to win the nomination.  After the first round the superdelegates can vote.

In 2020 there will be 3,979 delegates to the Democratic National Convention who will be selected as a result of primaries and caucuses.    To win the nomination one needs 1,991 delegates.

If Bernie Sanders does not get to this number by the first round, the 771 Superdelegates will get to vote, and he will need 2,376 votes to win.  Fat chance!

Much in the same way that the Democratic Party and its leadership including Deborah Wasserman Schultz were stacked against Sanders in 2016, Tom Perez and much of the party leadership are opposed to him again.  Perhaps proof of this opposition is the disappointment in this year’s presumptive presidential heir apparent Joe Biden and the search for his moderate replacement in Peter Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Michael Bloomberg.

Despite coming behind Sanders twice in the popular vote in Iowa and New Hampshire, Buttigieg is seen in the media and party as the alternative to Sanders.  Despite fifth and third place finishes in these states, Klobuchar is seen as a winner and rising moderate alternative.  And without a delegate to his name but $400 million already spent, Bloomberg is the billionaire anthesis to Sanders who has pledged to take on the billionaires.  The moderate choice to Sanders is thus to vote for a billionaire or candidates who take money from billionaires.  In either case the message is clear, the Democratic Party establishment–one that has been pro-business, corporate, and complicit in shoving neo-liberalism down the throats of the American public and pushing white working class over to Trump and the Republicans—does not want Sanders.

By all accounts Sanders should be considered the populist frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.  Yet the plethora of candidates who are running and eating up delegates will make that hard.  Bloomberg on Super Tuesday when 34% of the pledged delegates are in play, stands a great chance of winning enough to reduce the mathematical probability that any candidates can get to 1,991 by the first round.  Should they happen, the superdelegates enter and they will no doubt cast the die against Sanders.

Rush to Judgement: What we Should or Should not Infer from Iowa and New Hampshire

There are 3,979 delegates to the Democratic National Convention.  To win the nomination one needs

1,990 delegate votes.  After Iowa and New Hampshire only 65 or 1.6% of all the delegates have been awarded.  The primary season has barely started.  Yet many pundits, political experts, and the media want to reach broad conclusions about what is happening.  On one level any inferences from Iowa and New Hampshire should be premature yet already we have declared winners and losers, with some candidates having already dropped out and others seen as frontrunners or not.

Bernie Sanders
On many counts Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.  While he is only one delegate vote behind Peter Buttigieg (22 to 21 out of the 1,990 needed to win the nomination), he has won the popular vote in Iowa and New Hampshire and he is ahead in the fundraising battle. 
Moreover, with the other liberal Elizabeth Warren coming in third and fourth  in the first two states, her campaign seems to be floundering, seeming to suggest Sanders is on the cusp of consolidating the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.  At the same time, the moderate wing, represented by Joe Biden, Mayor Peter Buttigieg, Senator Amy Klobuchar, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is more divided.
Moderates, worried at the prospects of a Sanders nomination, are touting Buttigieg and even Klobuchar post New Hampshire as winners, with the latter, despite a fifth a third place finish in Iowa and New Hampshire, now the latest alternative to a fallen Joe Biden.

Joe Biden
Based on two states, it looks like former Vice-president Joe Biden’s chances for the nomination are not good.  He has had two dismal showings (fourth and fifth in Iowa and New Hampshire respectively), and he appears to be behind two other candidates, Peter Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar for the moderate vote, and behind the frontrunner liberal Bernie Sanders and even Elizabeth Warren.
Why has Biden done so badly?  Several reasons,   One, the center of the Democratic party has moved left from where President Barack Obama and Biden were when they left office.  Two, Biden has run a lackluster campaign and his debate performances have been weak.  Three, like Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2016, he is running like he deserves the nomination.  Yet to rule Biden out would be a mistake for several reasons.
Yes the results in Iowa and New Hampshire will create momentum, media attention, and money for its winners, Yet Iowa and New Hampshire are very different from the next two states, and even the rest of the country.  The US overall is 60% White Caucasian, with Iowa and New Hampshire respectively 86% and 90%.  They are racially not representative of the country, let alone of the Democratic Party where according to 2016 presidential exit polls 71% of the electorate was White, but 74% of the votes for Clinton were from people of color.
The next two states, Nevada and South Carolina, are 49% and 64% white, with high percentages of the Democratic voters people of color.  These next two states are very different from Iowa and New Hampshire.  Joe Biden enjoys significant support among people of color, especially African-Americans, whereas none of the other candidates do well with minorities.  This may change the race for the nomination in many ways because candidates such as Buttigieg and Klobuchar will be challenged to reach out to a different racial demographic.  So far their appeal has been to run as Midwesterners with Midwest values, failing to realize that such designations are code words for “White” among people of color.  White may work in Iowa and New Hampshire, but it is less clear it will work in Nevada and South Carolina.  And even if they get the nomination for president, there is a calculus here.  How many White Trump votes can they move (when the evidence suggests Trump has 90%+ support of his base) versus how many people of color do they turn off?  The argument for the moderate Democratic candidate relies upon a net positive sum for this tradeoff, especially in critical swing states.

Michael Bloomberg
Michael Bloomberg now will be an increasing factor as he will appear in debates and in the primaries.  He has already spent more than $400 million in advertising, giving him a fourth if not better place in some national polls.  He appears to poll as well as any candidate in a head-to-head with President  Donald Trump.  Bloomberg’s money will be a factor for all of the candidates going forward, not just for the moderates but also for Sanders who will have to basically run against him.  This divide will be a major problem for the Democrats going forward.

Conclusion
More than 98% of the Democratic delegates have yet to be awarded.  The size of Super Tuesday and especially the frontloading of the California primary change the value of Iowa and New Hampshire.   It is not clear that one can really extrapolate from less than 2% of the delegate count to inferring much of anything.

Lessons from the So-Called New Hampshire Presidential Debate

What did we learn from the so-called New Hampshire Democratic presidential debate?  The simple answer is that if they keep it up the Democratic Party will debate itself into losing the 2020 presidential race.
The New Hampshire debate, like all of the previous ones over the last few months, was  not a debate.  They have been simply media events, Jerry Springer shows full of one-liners, petty attacks, and vacuous positioning on issues that hardly count as debates and  where CNN or the moderators egg on the participants.  Real debates are when individuals take positions on issues, argue to points, and provide reasoned arguments and evidence to support their claims.  This was not what happened in New Hampshire or in any of the previous debates. There was no substance here.  To recall a famous line Walter Mondale once used against Gary Hart: “Where’s the beef?”
What we saw in New Hampshire was predictably boring.  The front runners Buttigieg and Sanders were attacked by Klobuchar and Biden who has to recover from Iowa.  Warren, Steyer, and Yang did their best to be relevant, and all of them tried to argue that the reason to vote for them was that they hated Trump the most or they were the most electable.  None of them, bar Sanders, really spent much time articulating their narrative for why they should be president, what they hoped to do, or what they sought to accomplish in a meaningful way.  It was a boring Jerry Springer show. 
What one took away was a choice: Vote for an inexperienced frontrunner who takes money from billionaires or vote for a billionaire directly who was a mayor of a city 86X more populous, or vote for me because I tell  folksy Midwestern jokes, because I will do well in South Carolina, or because even though I did bad in Iowa and probably will do so in New Hampshire, I am still the most electable.
Moreover, the debate seemed to show that there is a collective action or tragedy of the commons problem with the Democratic Party.  By that, Ronald Reagan famously declared the Eleventh Commandment that: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”  For Democrats their Eleventh Commandment seems to be: “Thou shalt only speak ill of any fellow Democrat.”  It is in the collective interest of the Democratic presidential candidates and party not to attack one another, but it is in the interest of each on individually to do so.  The presidential candidates view the presidential race as a zero sum game, I win only if you lose.  The path to the nomination is dirty and attack everyone else, rendering you the last one standing,  fully damaged by the process.
The two biggest winners of the so-called  New Hampshire presidential debate were Donald Trump and Michael Bloomberg.  All agreed Trump needed to go but failed to say much beyond that in terms of a clear vision of where to go next.  All of them also could hear Bloomberg’s absence as deafening, feeling the need to attack him because as one watches his ads you get the sense that “Mike will get it done” gut the others are clueless regarding what its is or how to get it done.
The biggest losers were the Democratic Party and the American public.   This media event simply torn one another down and did little to repair the debacle of Iowa.  The American public, still registering high disapproval for Trump and yearning for an alternative, did not find it here, at least with the format offered.

Iowa and the Real Start of the 2020 US Presidential Election

Monday, February 2, is the official start of the 2020 presidential elections.  It is when the Iowa
caucuses take place.  Here are some thoughts.

What should we expect from this primary season?

The Democratic Primary season starts with the Iowa caucuses.  Traditionally the value of Iowa is that it serves as a testing ground and an way to winnow down the number of potential or viable candidates moving forward.

Based on the most recent polls, There is a cluster of four to six candidates who are still viable: Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg.  Bloomberg is not contesting Iowa.  For the first five, to remain viable going forward one probably needs to finish in the top three.  Specifically, for example, Klobuchar, who has made Iowa the centerpiece of her presidential campaign, must come in the top three to remain viable.  Moreover, if she beats Buttigieg, or vice versa, the loser is probably also going to have a hard time going forward.  Similarly, Warren and Sanders are fighting for the progressive wing of the party and the one who comes out on top will be the leader for that side.

Right now, polls suggest it is Biden and Sanders who are in the lead in Iowa.  Sanders is also leading in New Hampshire.  After that, Biden leads in Nevada and South Carolina.  The point is that very rapidly I can see the race turning into a Sanders-Biden contest, with Bloomberg’s money making him a wild car going into Super Tuesday.  All this suggests that the Democratic Party is still torn between progressive and moderate wings, much like in 2016, and the challenge is finding a way to unite the party.  Which candidate can do that and how is an interesting question.

- What's on stake for the Democratic party?
Obviously beating Donald Trump is the big issue, but so is uniting the party, bringing in the next generation of Democratic voters, and taking back the Senate and making gains in the state legislative elections as one prepares for redistricting in 2021.  All of these events define important political events and challenges for the Democratic party.

- What's the biggest challenge they face right now?
Finding a viable message or narrative to defeat Trump along with devising a campaign strategy to beat him in the critical few swing states that will decide the election.
- Which candidate do you think is best equipped to win the nomination?
Right now it looks like Biden is better equipped to win if one follows a convention strategy.  But he may not inspire younger votes.


- Is there any chance to defeat President Trump?
It will be a close election.
The 2020 presidential race is effectively over in 44 states plus the District of Columbia.  Who will be the next president is down to a handful of voters in six swing states.

Based on recent elections, voting patterns, and polling, a Democratic Party candidate for president is nearly certain to win California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, (overall state) Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,   Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.  This is a total of 19 states plus the District of Columbia.  In the case of Maine, Democrats probably will overall win the state and three of its four electoral votes.  The other electoral vote, which is for the Second Congressional district, goes to the Republican.  Democrats start with 222 electoral votes.

A Republican Party candidate will win 30 states plus part of Maine.  These states are  Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, (Second Congressional District), Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.  Republicans start with 216 electoral votes. 

Yet there are six remaining states–Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,  and Wisconsin–totaling 100 electoral  votes, which are too close to call and they are the swing states that will decide the presidency.  The task for the Democrats is finding a candidate who can not only hold their base states but win enough electoral votes in these swing states to win the election.  Remember:  The popular vote does not matter and national opinion polls do not matter.

The road to the White House starts with Iowa and ends with these six states.

The Electoral College Map Right Now Says Trump Wins in 2020

The 2020 presidential race is effectively over in 44 states plus the District of Columbia.  Who will be the next president is down to a handful of voters in six swing states.

            As Americans have now learned twice since 2000 the presidential popular matters little.  It is the electoral vote and the number of electoral votes it takes to win the presidency is 270.   Because of laws in 48 of the 50 states (Maine and Nebraska the exceptions), whichever presidential candidate wins a plurality of its popular vote wins all of its electoral votes.  Across the country because some states are more Republican or Democratic  leaning, they are safely in the camp of one party or another regardless of  the candidate.

            Based on recent elections, voting patterns, and polling, a Democratic Party candidate for president is nearly certain to win California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, (overall state) Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,   Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.  This is a total of 19 states plus the District of Columbia.  In the case of Maine, Democrats probably will overall win the state and three of its four electoral votes.  The other electoral vote, which is for the Second Congressional district, goes to the Republican.  Democrats start with 222 electoral votes.

            A Republican Party candidate will win 30 states plus part of Maine.  These states are  Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, (Second Congressional District), Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.  Republicans start with 216 electoral votes.  

            The likely voting patterns of 44 states calls into question how important the stand on issues is compared to partisanship.  In these states it does not matter if a Democrat is advocating for Medicare of all or something less, issue stance will have marginal impact on the election.

Yet there are six remaining states–Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,  and Wisconsin–totaling 100 electoral  votes, which are too close to call and they are the swing states that will decide the presidency.

            These states, exception Minnesota, have swung back and forth between Republican and Democratic Party presidential candidates over the last four elections.  Head-to-head surveys of Trump versus Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, and Warren find these states to be competitive.  However, even among these six, we can make some guesses about what they might do.  Minnesota is a state Trump almost won in 2016 and is targeting it in 2020.   Yet Trump is losing by double-digit numbers to any likely Democratic candidate.   In Michigan, Biden, Warren, and Sanders are leading Trump, but only Biden appears to have a statistically significant lead.  Move these 26 electoral votes to a Democrat and now it is 248. 

            On the Republican side, while recent polls indicate that Florida and North Carolina give Biden a slight lead in both (Warren and Sanders are effectively tied with Trump), these states are hard for Democrats to win.  They have large white working class populations who are motivated Trump supporters.  Move the 44 electoral votes over to Trump, and he now has 260.

            This leaves Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes and  Wisconsin’s 10 which will determine the 2020 election.  As of now, the only Democratic candidate who has a statistically significant lead over Donald Trump in Pennsylvania is Scranton’s own Joe Biden.  Assume he is the nominee; Democrats win the state  but still are short two electoral votes.

            This leaves it up to Wisconsin.  Biden is  the only Democrat with a lead over  Trump in the Badger state, but it is effectively a statistical tie.  Given the high percentage of white working class voters in Wisconsin, their likely motivation especially post-impeachment, and  devotion of some Democratic resources to winning or holding other Midwest states such as Minnesota or Michigan, move the ten electoral votes to Trump.  With that Trump wins an electoral college re-election with a bare minimum 270-268 victory.
         Now, assume Democrats hold Maine -2, this then makes the electoral vote 269-269, no majority. This then means according to the Constitution that the House elected in 2020 will pick the net president, with each state getting one vote. Right now with the current House Republicans hold a 26-24 edge, with Michigan and Pennsylvania tied. Republicans control a majority of the states despite the fact that Democrats have majority control. Assume Republicans continue to hold a majority of states in the new Congress and Democrats have majority control, Trump wins in the House. The battle for partisan control of state congressional delegations is also important.

            A lot can change between now and November 2020.  How impeachment and the economy play out are two  issues. As we also saw in 2016, campaign strategy  matters, and Hillary Clinton lost in part because she failed to develop an effective electoral vote plan.  Similarly, this preliminary study shows that perhaps only in a few states and among a handful of voters does the actual candidate  stance on issues matter.  But what might matter is whom the candidate is and in what state and based on polling nearly a year out the Democrats best chance of winning the presidency might be with Joe Biden because he appears best positioned to win several swing states, including a decisive Pennsylvania and  Wisconsin.

Ten Questions on Impeachment and the 2020 US Elections

1 - One year out from the 2020 elections, what does it look like?

One year out from the 2020 elections American politics is very polarized.   The US is experiencing the greatest gap in income and wealth at least since the 1920s and studies point to a nation with rigid social mobility.  The result is a nation divided geographically, racially, and most important, politically.

The country is very divided across a range of issues including health care, the economy, foreign policy, and most important, over the performance of President Donald Trump.  Democrats and Republicans have very different views on Trump’s performance, and the coming 2020 elections to a large extent will be a referendum on him.



2 - What are the big election themes?

Really the 2020 elections are about Trump–a referendum on his performance and whether he should get a second term, or even impeached or removed from office.  But beyond Trump, the major issues seem to be health care, both cost  and access, the economy, which seems to be slowing, immigration, and perhaps foreign policy or how the US engages with the rest of the world.

3.  On Thursday the Democrats in the House formally voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry.  What was the significance of that vote?

First, this was not impeachment, merely formalizing what has been going on for several months.  The Constitution gives Congress broad investigatory and oversight powers and the line between those functions and their constitutional power of impeachment is thin.   There is amble case law on this as precedent.  Thus, for a legal perspective the vote on Thursday meant little, but politically it was significant. 

With that vote Donald Trump is only the fourth president in US history subject to a formal impeachment inquiry.  That is not a great club to be in.  But also politically, the vote is important for other reasons.  Trump and the Republicans have thus far complained that the impeachment process is not legitimate and transparent, thereby justifying the president’s refusal to cooperate.  Never ask for something because you might regret getting it. Those reasons not disappear.  Again, from a legal perspective, none of this mattered, but now politically if the president or Republicans refuse to cooperate when they have the ability to do so it looks bad for them politically.  Also, the president’s decision not to cooperate looks even more like possible  obstruction of justice.

Also, now the formalizing of the impeachment inquiry sets up a long process of educating the American public about the president’s behavior.  If the president fights the inquiry, it drags the process further into 2020, placing impeachment into the center of the primaries and perhaps the general election.  The more Trump fights, the more it drags on, the more it gets into the center of the  election.  How the impeachment and the 2020 elections intersect is a great question.  Will it mobilize Republicans or Democrats?  Or is the issue really how it impact party base mobilization and swing voters in a few swing states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin?  This latter scenario may be the real issue.


The impeachment complicates the ability of the two parties to work together, which was already bad.  It also complicates the electoral picture because it is not clear which party the impeachment process favors.  Will it boast Democratic or Republican base voting.  How will it impact swing voters, especially in a cluster of swing states such as in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  Finally, the timing of a possible impeachment and Senate trial is critical to how it impacts politics.


4 - Three months are left before the primaries begin and four months before Super Tuesday, which this year will have California and Texas.  Where are the Democrats?

Right now the Democratic field for president is wide and deep, but there are really only a handful of serious candidates.  Generally, Iowa and then New Hampshire are the two states that have the biggest influence on the presidential nomination process in the US.  The Iowa caucuses are February 3, 2020.  Yet this coming year California and Texas have moved their primaries to March 30, with early voting in the former coming the day of the Iowa caucuses.   These two primaries may make Iowa less important, or change the strategy of the primary process.  California and Texas will require a lot of money and momentum, and it is not clear that doing well in Iowa will provide either.  In addition, candidates may need to decide whether to commit resources to Iowa–with few delegates–or work to do well in California and Texas, which have more delegates. The change in primary schedules complicates the strategy for 2020.

Moreover, while the Democrats are united again Trump, they lack a defining narrative of what they want to do and what they stand for.  They are missing the elusive narrative.  Right now they are a party divided facing a president who has a unified Republican party behind him.  Despite the slowing  of the economy, a dreary manufacturing sector, and how health care and the trade wars are hurting  his base economically, there is no sign that these factors are eroding his support.

5 - Who are the favorites among Democrats?
At this point it is Joe Biden, Elizabeth, Bernie Sanders, and Peter Buttigieg who are the top tier candidates in terms of money raised and standing in the polls,    Biden is the leader among the more centrists of the party while Warren and Sanders are fighting for the left.  The questions will be who emerges as the candidate of the left and then how will they square off against Biden and then which side–the moderate or the left–prevails within the Democratic party.

What has been surprising is the endurance of Biden.  Despite his weak debate performance, he still is at or near the top in national and many state polls.

6 - What about Trump’s  wall?  Is it still an issue.

The wall was always a metaphor about other things that Trump was forced to own and take literally  as a promise.

The wall will continue to be an issue for Trump and his base, but the impeachment and court challenges to the wall are complicating this as an issue.  Trump will raise it at rallies but he has somewhat moved on to running against his impeachment and Democrats as his core issues along with going after immigrants.

The other issue of possible concern for Trump is the slowing of the US economy, but so far it does not look like it is affecting his support among his political base.

7- How will the China theme impact as elections?

China is a surrogate for immigration, isolationism, and protectionism.  These themes resonate with the Republican base and so far there is no indication that the economic consequences are weakening support among Trump’s base.

8 - Is it possible to apply for an independent (Bloomberg) or a competitive third party to enter the race?
People always talk of an third party candidate or party but the entry barriers, such as costs and legal challenges to get on the ballot, make it unlikely that a third party will emerge.  Bloomberg also dislikes Trump enough that he will not enter as a spoiler.

9 - What about the congressional elections?

It seems unlikely the House will flip, especially with the number of Republicans who are retiring.  The issue is whether the Republican can hold the Senate. Currently that have a 53-47 effective majority.  In 2020 there will be 35 Senators up for election, of which 23 are Republicans.  The impeachment process and possible Senate trial will test their loyalty–support the president or act to protect their own Senate seat.

One should also not forget that many state legislative seats are up for election in 2020. This is the election will determine control of the state houses going into the 2021 census and redistricting.

10–Any last thoughts?
Forget all the national polls.  Remember that the presidential election is about the electoral college and the race to 270 electoral votes. The next president is the only who moves a handful of swing voters in a few swing counties in a few swing states. That is the real presidential election.

What is Democratic Socialism and does Trump Need to Protect Us from Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez?

What does it mean to be a Democratic Socialist and are Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supporters such that Trump needs to protect us from them as he declared in his State of the Union speech?

The simple answer is that historically democratic socialism meant democratic ownership and control of the means of production or of the economy, including major corporations.  Democratic socialism is not simply providing government benefits such as Social Security or health benefits.  This is enlightened capitalism or welfare state capitalism but certainly not socialism.  Conflating all this with democratic socialism is simply another effort to Red bait anyone who believes in government helping others.


 In 2015 Sanders declared:
And what democratic socialism is about  is saying that it is immoral and wrong that the top one-tenth of 1 percent in this country own almost 90 percent - almost - own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.  That it is wrong, today, in a rigged economy, that 57 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent.

That when you look around the world, you see every other major country providing health care to all people as a right, except the United States.  You see every other major country saying to moms that, when you have a baby, we're not gonna separate you from your newborn baby, because we are going to have - we are gonna have medical and family paid leave, like every other country on Earth.

For Sanders, economic justice and leveling the opportunity and income gap between the rich and poor is what part of what it means to be a democratic socialist.  Yet historically the term has meant  more that economic justice, it also included democratic control of the economy.

Democratic socialism emerges as a political movement in response to Karl Marx’s criticism of capitalism in the mid nineteenth century.  To simplify, Marx had argued that the core problem of capitalism was  a class exploitation and struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat where the latter sells labor power which is extracted as surplus value by the former.  The bourgeoisie own the means of production and over time in their race to maintain profits they increasingly replace human labor power with machines, they drive down wages placing more and more individuals into poverty.  This process creates an economic crisis, intensifying class struggle, and eventually creating conditions for a capitalist struggle.  As the theory was eventually amended by Engels, it suggested an economic inevitability for the revolution.  With Lenin, the communist party would serve as a vanguard movement to lead the revolution.  As further amended by Stalin, this party in practice was highly undemocratic.

Starting in the late nineteenth century individuals such as Eduard Bernstein in Evolutionary Socialism argued that the revolutionary tactics and economic inevitability of the revolution were not  practical or certain.  He and others agreed with much of the basic criticism of Marx but instead tied the future of a classless society to parliamentary democracy.  Specifically, the emphasis was upon linking universal franchise to socialist ideals with the hope that socialism could be brought about by elections.  For Bernstein, socialism was an ethical imperative, it was about treating everyone with respect, and it was grounded in the French Revolution ideas of promoting “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.”  It was taking the ideals of political liberalism and translating them into economic democracy.  In effect, workers would have democratic control not just of the government but of the economy.

There was serious debate over whether parliamentary socialism was possible, with writers such as Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Kautsky, and Leon Trotsky reaching various conclusions.  But the core argument about what constituted democratic socialism centered on democratic control of the marketplace–it was democratic control of capitalism.  It was about ensuring that workers and not capitalists made decisions about what to invest, not letting the choice simply remain in the boardrooms of corporate executives.

The dividing line between democratic socialism and what we might call enlightened capitalism or liberalism is significant.  John Stuart Mill’s Principles of Political Economy argued that social injustices could be addressed by simple redistribution of economic resources–the classic welfare state.  Here the government would tax the rich and redistribute economic resources, or use its power to improve the economy.  Eventually this would be the Keynesian economics of the New Deal and Great Society.  It is state capitalism for the benefit for middle class and poor, but it is still capitalism.  Yes, the government can act and manipulate the economy for the benefit of the people, but it can also do that for the benefit of the rich.  This is what the US government has essentially done for the last couple of generations, and this is the criticism that Sanders is leveling.

In so many ways, Sanders is a left liberal following Mill and Keynes–we can use state capitalism to augment  economic redistributions–but he is not a democratic socialist in the classic meaning where the emphasis is upon democratizing both the political and economic systems.  It is about subordinating market choices and the free market to serving democratic imperatives.

Michael Harrington was perhaps America’s finest theoretician of democratic socialism.  He was one of the founders of the Democratic Socialists of America.  His book The Other America in the early  1960s is one of the clearest criticisms of American capitalism and it inspired many.  But in his Socialism Past & Future he crisply defines democratic socialism as:

[D]emocraticization of decision making in the everyday economy, of micro as well as micro choices.  It looks primarily but not exclusively to the decentralized, face-to-face participation of the direct produces and their choices in determining the matters that shape their social lives.  It is not a formula  of a specific legal mode of ownership, but a principle of empowering people at the base...This project can inspire a series of structural reforms that introduce new modes of social ownership into a mixed economy.

Democratic socialism is not the central state planning of the economy where the government owns  all the businesses.  It is as Alec Nove describes in the Economics of Feasible Socialism a variety of business types, but all are connected by the idea that there is democratic control over basic economic choices.  What China has with its state-owned enterprises is not socialism, it is state capitalism, and mostly to the benefit of a few.  Few Chinese have much say over the economic choices being made in that country, one where there is a sharper and sharper class divide.

Democratic socialism for Harrington, and Dorothy Day, as well as Norman Thomas, Eugene Debs, and Emma Goldman, is also as Bernstein argued, infused with ethical imperatives about respecting human dignity and the banner of individual rights as articulated by classical writers such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Democratic socialism would assail  the power of the rich and of corporations in America, contending that is not enough just to tax them and redistribute wealth.  Instead, it is about saying they do not get to make the political and economic choices that govern the rest of society.  It is saying that the people get to own the economy and decide for themselves.  Capitalism does not dictate how democracy operates, it is vice-versa.

This is what democratic socialism has historically meant. Sanders may or may not be one or he may be redefining what the term means.  But orthodox democratic socialism is something different than what Sanders described in 2015, what Trump disparages, and what so many think of when the discuss matters such as free health care, college education, or other programs.

Swing Counties and Why Clinton Really Lost? It Wasn't Sanders Fault...It was Hers

So why did Hillary Clinton lose to Donald Trump?  For many this is now a “Who cares?” and it is time to “move forward” as Bernie Sanders said Thursday on The Late Show.  Yet Clinton cannot.  In her forthcoming book she describes the attacks on her by Sanders as causing “lasting damage” damage to her campaign.  No doubt, Clinton’s new book will seek the causes of her defeat in outside forces–the Russians and Sanders for example–but the roots of her defeat also lie within her own control.  Much could be written about how all the mistakes she made and how she failed to learn from them eight years later.  Yet perhaps one way to capture her mistakes is simply to look at her general election campaign, especially in terms of where she campaigned and how often.
I am in the process of doing a second edition of Presidential Swing States.  In editing that book with Stacy Hunter Hecht I realized it is not simply swing states that make the difference in presidential elections, it is the swing voters within the swing counties in the swing states that are critical.  In this second edition I am doing a chapter on the swing counties.  Looking at county campaign activity tells one a lot about the mistakes made by Clinton in the 2016 general election.
There are 3,142 counties, parishes, or boroughs in the United States.  During the 2016 general election, Clinton/Kaine made a total of 152 campaign visits to 75 counties located in 14 different states.  Trump/Pence made a total of 248 campaign visits to 142 counties in 25 states.  Total, they  made 400 campaign visits to 167 counties located in 26 states.   Between the two campaigns, they only campaigned in 5.3% of the US counties.  For Clinton it was only 2.4% of all counties, for Trump it was 4.5%.  Trump/Pence not only made nearly 60% more campaign visits than Clinton/Kaine, but they visited nearly 90% more counties.  Simply put, they made more visits to more locations than Clinton/Kaine.  Alone that tells one something about why Clinton lost–she did not campaign as much or broadly as Trump–he simply out-hustled her on the campaign trail.
But what is also interesting to consider is where the Clinton and Trump campaigns chose to  visit.
Clinton and Trump demonstrated different tactics in terms of the counties they chose to visit. For Clinton, her most frequent visits were to Democratic Party strongholds located in big urban areas such as Philadelphia, Fort Lauderdale, and Detroit.  For Trump,   the focus seemed less on big Republican strongholds and more on visiting swing areas or counties such as Hillsborough County in New Hampshire or Mecklenberg County in North Carolina.
These contrasting strategies suggest  that Clinton’s focus was either on shoring up her party base or simply trying to maximize her turnout among the Democrats.  For Trump, the focus seemed more on swing voters, perhaps reflecting the fact that either he was sure he had his base or that he was trying to expand or shift it.  All these are possible scenarios.  Yet I would also argue that what the Trump campaign did was more strategic and realistic.  His campaign understood that the key to winning an election is not just holding and mobilizing a base, but it is also going after the s wing voters in swing areas who control the balance of power in presidential elections.
Yes it is possible that Clinton had to campaign in the Democratic Party strongholds to overcome the attacks inflicted upon her by Sanders.  But a stronger argument can be made is that she simply failed to make enough campaign visits in the critical swing countries among swing voters to ask them for their vote.  If that is the case, she violated a cardinal rule of politics once enunciated by Tip O’Neill–never take a vote for granted and always ask for it.  It appears Clinton just did not ask the swing voters in the swing states for their votes, and that is why is lost.


Clinton Campaign Visits
State County Visits
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 8
Florida Broward 7
Florida Miami-Dade 7
Nevada Clark 6
Michigan Wayne 6
Ohio Cuyhoga 6
Pennsylvania Allegheny 5
North Carolina Wake 4
Iowa Polk 4
Florida Orange 3
Florida Palm Beach 3
Ohio Franklin 3
New Hampshire Hillsborough 3



Trump Campaign Visits
State County Visits
New Hampshire Hillsborough 7
Colorado El Paso 6
New Hampshire Rockingham 6
Nevada Clark 5
North Carolina Mecklenberg 5
Florida Miami-Dade 5
Nevada Washoe 5
North Carolina New Hanover 4
Arizona Maricopa 4
Ohio Cuyhoga 4

An American Coup

It was not so much that he made America great again, but when Donald Trump was elected president on November 8, 2016 he transformed the United States in ways that few, including he, could have imagined.
Right from the start establishment politicians and pundits just never understand Trump.  He was consistently derided as having no chance.  First it was that his repeated insults against John McCain, Megyn Kelly and women, immigrants, or Muslims that would doom him. But with each insult his fame only grew.  Then it was the claim that he could not win in Iowa but he did.  Or that his loss in Wisconsin would doom him.  Or that his tirades against the media, his name calling of Hillary Clinton, or even selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate would surely kill his campaign.  Back in June of 2016  as stories mounted about how little money he had raised, or that Clinton had double digit leads in some polls, he was still dismissed.  Nat Silver, the whiz kids of political money ball, said that Trump had barely a 20% chance of winning and who could doubt the person who had so brilliantly declared that Clinton was a cinch to win the Michigan primary .
Even as late as the July Republican convention, despite the riots and arrests outside and one final push by party elites to use the rules to oust him, some thought that Trump would not get the nomination.  But he did.
Trump’s success was in exploiting fear, prejudice, and ignorance.  These are the core elements of what most advertising does–appeal out our vanity insecurities,  and fears.  Trump as the consummate  salesman understood that.  But he also exploited the failures of the Republican and Democratic parties which for the last generation or more has sold the public on free trade, globalization, and open borders, saying that it would benefit us all.  Somewhere along the way these promises did not add up and mainstream national journalists, living in New York City, socializing on the upper east side, and vacationing in the Hamptons, for some reason just did not realize that average people were not reaping the benefits of NAFTA and free trade.  Perhaps they were too busy attending or covering the six figure speeches Hillary Clinton was giving to Wall Street to notice that most people were making less money now while working harder than they did twenty years ago.  Yes as F Scott Fitzgerald once said, the rich are different–they do have more money–but with money comes attitude and Trump played on resentment toward them and the elitism that they, the media, and the Washington establishment all represented.
Trump also understood they way that politics and entertainment had converged.  Politicians  no longer campaigned and the media no longer covered politics–both were marketed.  Trump understood the for-profit spectacle that politics had become and which the news industry wished to deny but depended on. He knew that CNN, MSNBC, and the rest could not resist a good headline and that if he dropped a comment–no matter how outrageous–the media would pick it up and it would fill the news cycle for an entire day.  Trump thus understood how getting headlines for him also meant the media  would get ratings.  They were trapped, and forced to market the presidential elections on Trump’s terms.
But Trump also benefited from running against for many a hugely unpopular and uninspiring candidate who was the face of the establishment and status quo in a year where   neither was a plus.  Clinton struggled to win the Democratic nomination against an aging self-described socialist who  never considered himself a Democrat until he decided to run for president.  Clinton should have easily defeated him, but her difficulties revealed how poor of a candidate she was.  She started a race with 70% approvals and a 50%+ lead over Sanders only to see it disappear.  Some of it yes was sexism.  No doubt there is about 30% of Americans who will never vote for a woman and thus Clinton faced problems from the start.  But she also had many other problems they were not the result of sexism but self-inflicted.
At the end of the day Clinton had no narrative for her campaign.  It was all about breaking the glass ceiling and being the first female president.  That did not cut it with young people, including women, who preferred someone who shared their politics and not simply their gender.  Additionally, whatever narrative Clinton had was one that was either too conservative for an emerging Millennial generation of voters, or one that harkened back to her husband.  In so many ways she was still running, as she did in 2008, for Bill’s third term.  Yet times had changed and what was once thought of as good public policy in the 90s was no long seen the same in 2016.
Hillary–a once youthful Republican turned New Democrat turned sort of progressive during the 2016 primaries and then back to a centrist Democrat who tried to appeal to Republican voters–was perplexed why no one trusted her.  This perplexity was also shared by her core supporters–women over 40–who saw in every criticism of her sexism.  Yet what was also perplexing  in the campaign was why Democrats supported her, let alone women or even people of color.  Clinton  who supported the death penalty, fracking, TPP and globalization , and a militaristic foreign policy, (at least until the primaries), and in the past who supported welfare reform, her husband’s crime bill, and oppose marriage equality until recently, hardly seemed like someone who Democrat or women should support.  Given her positions, it is wonder why she was a Democrat and why so many women who considered themselves progressives supported her beyond the fact that she was a woman. Clinton had a narrative problem along with an identity problem–voters did not trust her and did not like her for sexist and legitimate policy reasons.
Yet Clinton was supposed to win according to pundits and politicians.  But she did not.  She selected Tim Kaine from Virginia and played conventional politics in a year when the normal rules of politics changed.  Similar to Frank Skeffington in the Last Hurrah who never understood how the  New Deal had changed politics and therefore was clueless to how the old rules of campaigning had changed.  Clinton campaigned like it was 1992 again, just like she did in 2008.
The election came down to a core of swing states again, with Ohio and Florida again decisive.  The media and Clinton were distracted by Trump’s huge negatives and by how well she was doing in the popular vote and fund raising comparatively.  She went toe-to-toe negative campaigning but in the end Trump was able to dig deeper, go nastier, and insult better than her. He knew fear, prejudice, and ignorance would make the difference.  Benghazi, her e-mails, and all the other rumors around her stuck along with the image of Crooked Hillary.    In the end, Clinton, like Gore in 2000, won the popular vote by racking up huge majorities in Democrat states, but she lost among swing voters in swing states, handing the Trump-Palin ticket  an Electoral College victory.
Trump’s January 20, inauguration and swearing in were a made for TV event.  The inauguration ball and swearing in was held at the Trump International Hotel at 1100 Pennsylvania Ave in Washington, newly remodeled and just down the street from the White House at 1600 Pennsylvania  Ave. The cost of doing both was billed to the taxpayers and Trump of course profited from it, serving also Trump champagne and steaks. At his swearing in he also announced that Air Force 1 would be sold to save tax payer money, replaced with a Trump charter jet that would be rented by the government from him.
Trump’s inaugural speech–or rant–was exactly what was expected from him.  He said that his first order of business would be to expel all Muslims from the US, along with deporting all immigrants from Mexico. He also renounced NAFTA and all the free trade agreements with China and issued a 40% tariff on their goods.    He issued orders suspending enforcement of Obamacare and declared all EPA orders null and void. Palin was put in charge of a special task force on energy and the environment, and he declared all federal lands open to mining and drilling for oil. Drill Baby  Drill was now the official policy of America.
Trump thought he could simply push through want he wanted but with a Republican House and Senate that flipped to the Democrats, he found that they were less they willing to do his bidding.  He insulted in bipartisan fashion but it did little good.  As the economy began to tank Trump saw his approval rating slip more.  Legal challenges to his orders and actions mounted, coming from both Congress and citizens.  The cases began to choke the federal courts, necessitating Supreme Court review.  But since the death of Scalia the Court was operating one justice shy and it did not look as if Trump was going to be able to get through his judicial appointments.
But whatever one can say about Trump he finally achieved the impossible–he got the Democrats and Republicans to agree on one thing–his impeachment.  Fed up quickly with his presidency there was bipartisan agreement to impeach him.  By the time Trump was to be impeached Palin had already resigned.  Trump was without a vice-president and his impeachment was for self-dealing and disregarding the Constitution and the Supreme Court which had declared many of his act illegal.  This left Paul Ryan as the successor.  Except Trump refused to leave office, defying both the Congress and the Courts.
But Trump’s troubles did not stop there.  Following up on comments he made during the campaign, he ordered th US out of NATO. He ordered troops out of Japan and South Korea, and he torn up the nuclear agreement with Iran.  Early on  much of the career diplomatic staff at the State Department had resigned, leaving the US with few trained officials.  Trump named almost all of his friends as ambassadors, but they shared a common Trump trait–no diplomatic tact.  Soon the US was rhetorically fighting with everyone–even Great Britain who elected their own Trump like figure after Brexit, and President Le Pen in France. Tensions escalated in the Middle East as reaction to the Muslim US ban kicked in and domestic and international terrorist attacks against the US mounted.  Tensions with Iran, China, and North Korea reached a fever pitch, and finally Trump began talking  about nuclear weapons to be used to resolve all these disputes.
Finally the day came, July 4, to be exact.   Trump ordered the military leaders to act or face removal. With the Joint Chiefs of Staff worried about what Trump would do next, and seeing that Congress and the Courts were unable to restrain him, they did they only thing they thought patriotic to save the United States.

All Things Political: Presidential and in Minnesota

Two topics this week: Clinton’s presidential campaign the awful end of the Minnesota legislative session and why politics favors not calling a special session

Clinton's Problems

Hillary Clinton has a problem and it is not Bernie Sanders. There are lots of reasons to think that her presidential campaign is confronting major problems that could linger beyond he DNC should she secure the party nomination.  This are problems mostly rooted in her candidacy, and less in what others are doing or not.

Consider the polls first.  In the last ten days national polls suggest Donald Trump has pulled even with her.  There are indications that Trump is consolidating support among Republicans and that they are uniting behind him mostly in terms of an Anti-Hillary campaign.    With Trump having clinched the nomination he is free to begin going after Clinton while Clinton has to worry about  still nailing down the Democratic nomination while campaigning against Sanders.  Yes, national polls mean little, especially now as a rule, but given how well known Trump and Clinton are perhaps the polls do tell us something. But second, even if the national polls are not relevant because the race for the presidency is a 50 state contest (due to the Electoral College) that is really only about ten states, Clinton and Trump seem to be tied in critical swing states such as Ohio and Florida.

But this week the polls tightened in California revealing essentially a tied race in that state between Sanders and Clinton.  Clinton supporters dismiss the poll as a fluke or say that California does not matter because with the New Jersey primary coming soon she will secure enough delegates to win the nomination even if she loses California.  Perhaps yes this is true, but she will only have enough delegates to win the nomination if one counts the superdelgates and she has a big lead here over them.  It is not a lead with the superdelegates in a way these delegates are supposed to operate, though.  The idea of the superdelegates is that these individuals are supposed to make to the decision on whom to support after all the primaries and caucuses are done, using their judgment to decide  who is the most electable.  If that were how they were actually rewarded the superdelegates should not have committed to Clinton before the primary season even began.  No, they are not operating in the way they should.

This is important because if the superdelegates work the way they should Sanders would have a good case to get them to support him for the Democratic nomination were he to win California.  If he wins the largest state that matters, and there are reasons he could.  California allows independents to vote in primaries, and it is in these states were Sanders does well.  There are also indications that there has been a significant number of new registrations in California, again potentially favoring Sanders.  Finally, with the GOP nomination wrapped up, independents who might have voted for Trump might vote for Sanders.  The simple point is do not discount a Sanders victory, especially in light of how Clinton’s poll numbers and actually votes are often different, with Michigan, Oregon, and Indiana  as good examples.

Since Super Tuesday Sanders has won more delegates that Clinton.  He has won more states.  He is doing better in the polls against Trump than Clinton.  (Yes, Clinton people argue that Sanders has not been fully vetted by the media and that is why he is doing well but as FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting pointed out, CNN, the NY Times, and the Washington Post among other major media have been largely negative against Sanders and attacked him as a socialist, thereby questioning the idea that he has not been vetted).  All of these are good reasons he should be able to convince superdelegates to support him, if the superdelegates worked the way they are supposed to.  Remember back in 2008 Clinton tried this strategy against Obama, contending she was a stronger candidate.  She eventually gave up but the point is that it is perfectly legitimate for Sanders to fight on and to make a case that he is a better candidate.

But Clinton also faces other problems that could feed into a Sanders’ argument for his nomination.  There are issues regarding whether Clinton can win over young voters and independents, both critical  to her campaign.  But this week the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of State issued its report–Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements–regarding Clinton’s handling of her e-mails. The report centrally and critically disputes Clinton’s claims.  Specifically the report notes that while previous SOS had used private emails, by the time Clinton tool office the Federal Records Act, the Foreign Affairs Handbook, the Foreign Affairs Manual, and other federal laws and regulations made it clear that she was not supposed to do so and that she had no permission to setup a private server at her NY home.  The report documents attempts to hack her server, missing e-mails, and a host of other problems.  Two quotes from report are worth noting:

As previously discussed, however, sending emails from a personal account to other employees at their Department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record. Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary.98 At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.  (23)

Secretary Clinton used mobile devices to conduct official business using the personal email account on her private server extensively, as illustrated by the 55,000 pages of material making up the approximately 30,000 emails she provided to the Department in December 2014. Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations  should be conducted on an authorized AIS,147 yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval (36-37)

The Report goes a long way in describing how Clinton broke the law although it does not use those words.  But the real problem here is how the Report means her e-mail controversy will not go away, and it leads to continuing veracity and credibility issues for Clinton.

Overall, Clinton faces many problems as her candidacy continues to evolve and it will be interesting  to see what happens in the next few weeks.


You Could See it Coming

No surprise that the Minnesota State Legislature adjourned without getting its work done. Back in January I argued that the 2016 session would be trapped by the politics of the 2016 elections and that it would not be a surprise if it deadlocked.  Well it did.

Three reasons for the gridlock.  The first is the partisan divide between the two parties over a range of issues that really makes it hard for Democrats and Republicans to work together.  The politics of Washington have come to St Paul.  Second, there is a leadership crisis–not just with Dayton but with  Baak in the Senate and Daudt in the House.  The three seem unable to lead their parties and the three also just do not seem like they get along.

Third, there are continuing structural problems for the deadlock.  The problems stem from the way  the budgets are made, from the timing of sessions and the fiscal forecast, and simply from issues of political incentives discouraging cooperation and working in a timely fashion to do things that need to be done.

So will there be a special session?  I am not sure there will be.  There may be good reasons, especially for Dayton, not to call a special session and use the gridlock as a political issues this November.  Right now the political incentives favor not reaching agreement on issues and therefore  not having a special session.  For now, the DFL, or at least Dayton, is in a better position not to call  a special session, but we shall see.