Words about our current predicament...

[This was written as a text response to family members, but it got away from me! 😅😆. Figured I'd just post here and share a link...]

In 2020 California voted on Super Tuesday, and going in it looked like Bernie Sanders was gonna sew things up... Bernie has some admirable qualities but I had serious concerns he would lose to Trump. Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropped out and endorsed Biden and I decided to vote for Biden myself in that primary, which of course turned the whole race around and set him up to be the nominee. 

Since then he's made me very proud of that vote. It's unbelievable how much he's accomplished with such thin margins in Congress. I actually wanted him to run for reelection because I thought he was doing a great job and incumbency is a huge advantage that I didn't want to leave on the table. Sure, he looked old, but he seemed fine to me. I believed in him.

It became clear though that I was an outlier... most voters viewed Biden as too old to do the job, out of it, probably not really even in charge, possibly senile, etc etc. I thought that was wildly off base and must be the product of a social media echo chamber or something. That's why even though he's been behind Trump in the polls the whole campaign I was bullish on his prospects... and why I was very much looking forward to the debate: once people saw the REAL Joe Biden, rather than this distorted caricature, it would change the dynamics of the race. 

Turns out I was the one in need of a reality check. Suddenly it became very clear why his campaign has kept him from doing unscripted events: They were avoiding moments like that debate. 

The irony is it really hasn't changed the dynamics of the race, precisely because most voters already had no confidence in Biden before the debate. Many people REALLY don't like Trump and will vote for any alternative. So the floor hasn't dropped from under us, but the ceiling may have dropped very close to the floor, as people's negative perceptions of Biden have essentially been confirmed. And now that everyone's seen it with their own eyes it's not going to be possible to convince them otherwise. The only argument is "but Trump is so much worse," which of course is absolutely true!... but not a great place to be.

While it's true there's been a media frenzy around this, I don't think this is ultimately a media generated story... The media is actually now catching up to voters' existing perceptions, not the other way around. The story is not going away as long as Biden is the nominee.  And, frankly, I think that's fair. Yes, we know Trump's sinister threat to democracy bears no comparison to Biden's age... But I think if Trump weren't in the race Biden's age/condition would be considered disqualifying. This isn't "Hillary's emails," this is a valid concern.

As a side note, I of course completely agree with Lucia that the press should focus more on how terrible Trump is... but I also see Jon Stewart's point that Trump has been insane the whole time ("He STARTED with 'grab em by the p***y'!!"). At times they've held Trump to scrutiny, but you can't keep the outrage at 10 indefinitely. Sadly, he becomes normalized. These revelations about Biden, though, are new and noteworthy, so they're getting all the attention now. It's not fair, but it's not surprising either.

Biden had a good performance yesterday, two full weeks after his terrible debate showing. The worst descriptions of Biden ("senile", etc) are obviously unfair...  but clearly it is fair to say he has "good days" and "bad days." In the last two weeks we've seen one of each. If his campaign could reliably put him out there to gain people's confidence I think they would. I think they don't because they're worried it will just make things worse. 

Instead it feels like they're trying to run out the clock before the convention. Once he's officially nominated there's no going back. We are tied to the mast at that point, for better or worse, haha. We'll have to hold our breath every time he has an unscripted event... and realistically we know there will be more "bad days" between now and election day (to say nothing of the next 4 years).

I'll bring it back to that 2020 Super Tuesday: it was a moment where party leaders saw things potentially going awry but made hard but necessary decisions to ensure we prevailed. We took control of our destiny. Now is a similarly crucial moment. I have been an enthusiastic supporter of Biden, and I'm proud of his many accomplishments, but I hope he will ultimately do what I believe is the right thing, put the country first, and step aside. 

Even if you don't think it's fair, it seems apparent he has lost the confidence of most Dem voters (outside Rocky Dell Rd 😜), Dem elected officials, and Dem stakeholders. His odds already looked long before the debate, and now they are undeniably worse. It's hard to see a path to victory. It's worth considering that both Trump and Pelosi, two people who don't agree on much, both seem to think Biden will lose and that another candidate would do better.

Ultimately I think it's a choice between a static, relatively predictable race in which we COULD eke out a win, but will probably lose (I'd give us a 1 in 3 chance), OR a dynamic, unpredictable, high risk/reward race, with a lot of potential pitfalls (I can imagine several specific ones), but also a lot of upside. (I'd give us better than 50/50 odds, with the possibility of doing very well). 

I know this is all gut-wrenching and difficult, but now is the time for our party to hash this out and get it right. I know those that argue for sticking with Biden do so in good faith, because they think it's the best path forward. Those arguments should absolutely be considered as well. We've got a few weeks before the nomination becomes official. After that there's no changing course. I hope more Dems will come forward and be frank about what needs to happen to defeat Trump in the upcoming election. Because that is all I care about. If we win I will party in the streets no matter who got us there. I don't even want to think about if we lose.

Meme the vote

I guess I'm in the mood for philosophizing these days... I wanted to share some of my thoughts on voting:

I got a friend of mine to vote for the first time this election. He said he never voted before because he felt like it didn't matter. After all, what were the odds any election would be decided by his own single vote. There's a logic to this, but it only goes so far...

In all aspects of life we have to act the way we hope others would act if there's going to be any chance for "society" to work. If you go to the beach how big a deal would it be to leave a piece of litter behind? One piece of trash on a large beach might not even be noticed. But obviously if everyone acted that way we'd have some pretty crummy beaches! Likewise with voting... You have to do your part.

I'll take it a step further... perhaps more consequential than the act of voting itself is subscribing to and spreading the idea that "voting is important" (or its opposite). After all, it's true that one vote will almost never sway an election. But the idea that "voting doesn't matter" can spread and very quickly add up and absolutely sway elections. 

Today the word "meme" has come to refer to goofy pictures with captions, but originally it referred more generally to ideas that spread through society. A sort of pre-internet concept of "going viral," although it could be an implicit idea that people don't even think about consciously. The spread of attitudes about politics in general and voting specifically through communities is a crucial aspect of how politics end up affecting the real world. Communities that buy into the importance of voting for example will be better represented in election tallies, which will then of course prompt politicians to take their interests more seriously as they vie for their future votes. Communities that don't will find politicians taking their interests less seriously, thereby further reinforcing their lack of faith in the political process.

For this reason I'd argue maybe even more important than the act of voting is talking about voting (in person or online). That may involve talking directly about the importance of voting, or it may be delivering that idea implicitly as you talk about weighing your options, judging the candidates, etc. Underneath the discussion lies the assumption that "voting matters," even without saying so directly. When others also internalize this assumption they may talk about it to people they know, further spreading the idea, and so on. 

Nowadays we're all quite steeped in the literal consequences of "going viral" in terms of the spread of Covid. We know that if we pass along the virus (even if we don't get sick ourselves) we endanger far more than the people we directly infect. Say I get Covid, don't even notice I have it, pass it to two friends, who also don't realize they have it, who each pass it to two more people, some of whom get sick but recover but not before they all each pass it to two more people... and so on, infecting exponentially more people. Even if only a small percentage of those people suffer greatly or die it could still add up to a significant number. And it could have all been prevented had I just stayed home and not passed it along to my friend.

Well, ideas can spread in a similar fashion. Obviously either you have Covid or you don't, while beliefs and attitudes are more complicated and nuanced. Nevertheless, I think our power lies to a greater degree in how we talk and spread ideas about voting than in the actual act of voting itself. 

Which brings me to my final point, which is it's not just voting... The Georgia run-offs are coming up at the beginning of 2021, and will determine which party controls the Senate and therefore to what extent Washington will be paralyzed by gridlock. It's going to be an uphill climb for sure. The odds seem stacked against us. Then again Trump keeps saying the voting machines in the state are rigged, potentially discouraging his side from voting. A double victory there seems unlikely but is certainly not impossible. And it would make a huge, huge difference, so it's worth making every effort. 

For my part I plan on writing more letters through Vote Forward encouraging people to vote. I bring this up not so you'll say "Gee, Lee sure is a good guy!" ...If you do think that then that's a bonus, but you're just as likely perhaps to think I'm tooting my own horn, which may actually make you think less of me, who knows? I'm judging it a wash on that score :). 

No, the real reason I feel compelled to bring it up is that the effects of my letter writing are only marginally more consequential than my single vote. For the general election I wrote/mailed 100 letters to unreliable Democratic voters in swing states. Vote Forward did their own research (with control groups and everything) and determined that people who received one of their letters were 3.9% more likely to vote than people who didn't.  That means my 100 letters (which required no small amount of effort) likely resulted in four extra votes. Four. Even four votes are unlikely to change any elections. 

BUT, if other people like me get the idea writing these letters makes a difference, act on that, and further spread that notion... now we can get somewhere. So, the point is, writing my letters and being modest and not telling anyone I'm doing it is really not going to make much difference and borders on being a waste of time. They say "talk is cheap," but in this case talking about the work (or posting about it online, etc.) is at least as important as actually doing it. It's how you can encourage the idea of pitching in to help to "go viral," which is what will actually make a difference. It's how you build a movement.

That's why we probably all need to try to get more comfortable talking about this stuff on social media and IRL. Ok, some of us are very comfortable with it, perhaps to the point of being a little annoying haha, but I think the rest of us should actually try to be more like those people not less (ideally without being annoying). So far social media seems to be doing a better job of spreading bad ideas than good ones. But we all play a role in terms of how we choose to participate.

Bottom line: absolutely, VOTE! It's important. But how we participate the broader conversation with our friends/family/acquaintances probably matters more.

Election processing (thoughts on optimism)

First off, congrats to America for defeating the bad guy! It ain't nuthin'.

I wanted to recap my side of an online conversation I had with my uncle after the election cuz I think it could make interesting thought-food... 

Basically he was pretty down because he was expecting a broad repudiation of Trump and the Republican party in general and enough Dems elected across the board to begin making headway on the many issues that confront us. Instead while we managed to pull out a win for President, results down-ballot were disappointing, pointing towards gridlock and more close elections going forward even against the most egregiously unfit opponents. This left my uncle bummed even as others were celebrating. And, yeah, he's got a point! 

But I also agreed with Josh Marshall at TPM that there are good and important reasons to celebrate this victory. For one thing, it's truly an important accomplishment! Losing would have been catastrophic, and we prevented that catastrophe. Furthermore:

It is also far more than okay to embrace and exult in this moment of victory. It is not just acceptable. There is a moral imperative to do so. As much as policies or particular ideas political movements and coalitions are communities, ones that suffer reverses and victories as communities, either well or poorly. How they do so isn’t just a matter of individual experience. These choices can sustain and grow political power, something political movements are always in the midst of gaining or dissipating. It is important to relish the fruits of the common exertions of a political coalition you are part of. It doesn’t just feel good. It sustains and builds power, the experience and proof that hard work and the seemingly endless exertions can have a real and tangible impact on the world we live in. No one will celebrate your victories for you. You can’t be powerful if you don’t act powerful.

JM then goes on to quote what he wrote in the immediate aftermath of Trump's victory four years ago:

Optimism isn’t principally an analysis of present reality. It’s an ethic. It is not based on denial or rosy thinking. It is a moral posture toward the world we find ourselves in. If everything seems great, there’s no need for optimism.

He argues that celebration is "another of these moral postures to the world we find ourselves in, an expression of commitment to our dignity and our values." This idea of acting with optimism of course equally applies to how we should approach the likely stalemated government we will face (absent upset victories in Georgia, a subject I'll return to in my next post).

Logic, reason and experience tell us McConnell will do everything in his power to sabotage the government and make our country's problems as bad as possible (while hiding behind disingenuous arguments) in order to increase Republicans chances of winning in 2022 and 2024. Likewise, bigger picture and in the slightly longer run, our failing to reign in environmental destruction will likely result in a spiral of disaster. No one needs to look far for reasons for pessimism if that's what you're after! 

But I like JM's argument for optimism, not because of the prognosis but in spite of it.  It's not about making predictions for the future, it's about deciding how we're going to live our lives. 

If you'll indulge me, I shared this (by now slightly dusty) Wilco song with my uncle and later offered my interpretation, which ties in with this topic:

It's a war on war
It's a war on war
It's a war on war
There's a war on
You're gonna lose
You have to lose
You have to learn how to die
If you want to want to be alive

A "war on war" is a losing proposition. For one thing it's an oxymoron, how can you wage war on waging war? But more to the point, there will always be war, it's inevitable. You might as well try to prevent the sun from setting or rising. You need to accept you're going to lose. Likewise, in life we are all going to ultimately "lose" when we die... learning "how to die" is really learning how to live with an acceptance of death, a necessity if we "want to want to be alive." "Want to want" nicely compliments the title, both in how the words sound and in the apparent logical contradiction... either you want something or not, right? But apparently in this case "you" may not want to be alive, given the state of things, but if you "want to want" to be alive first you need to accept loss and death and find a way to live and fight for your values in spite of it all. 

I feel like that jibes with JM's message about optimism.  In the case of our present politics it's not so much about “war” specifically as dishonesty/corruption/bigotry/cruelty/division/etc/etc... and it's a war we’re gonna lose! There will always be these things... But we can beat them back for a while, even making a real difference in people's lives. Along the way there will be victories and losses. We should keep our heads up, fight the good fight, accept what we can’t control, live our values, and take joy where we can find it. (Say, in Trump's upcoming legal troubles 😆) 

Along somewhat similar lines, Ernest Hemingway greatly romanticized bullfighting (personally not my thing, but whatever). For him the bull represents death... There will always be another bull... eventually we all must succumb to what the bull represents. But the bullfighter stands against death and for at least one moment defeats it with grace, poise and courage. To Hemingway this represents life's ultimate aspiration: To live well in spite of death.

In terms of politics an ethic of optimism allows us to operate with the belief that a better world is possible if we work to make it so. And that if we step up and do our part others will step up and do theirs. Not because evidence necessarily supports this, but because that's how we choose to live. Ironically I think living this way makes it more likely that we will experience more positive outcomes along the way. But, more importantly, it's a just a good way to live your life.

Feeling: Frustrated 😣

 I posted this to Facebook today:

Politics on FB (or anywhere else!) can be a drag, but I'm feeling compelled...

If Republicans jam through another SC justice after blocking Garland in 2016 it will be a true crossing of the Rubicon. There will be no going back. Nerves are still raw from Garland... this is an opportunity to show good faith and at least apply that newly invented rule evenly. To bring the temperature down. Instead it appears Republicans are going to pour gasoline on the fire, destroying the legitimacy of the SC in the process. We will never stop fighting about this. 

But it appears that's where we're headed. I'm probably preaching to the choir but please remember it's not enough just to vote this year. Most directly, try to identify any unreliable voters you know and make sure they vote this year (a personal appeal is going to matter so much more than any advertising could). I signed up to write letters to swing state voters and donated to winning back state legislatures to fight unfair gerrymandering. (Links in the comments.) I'm sure there are many other ways you can get involved, but please be sure you are doing SOMETHING (beyond just voting).

This isn't just about Trump. It's about basic human decency. That's on the ballot, up and down the ballot. Nobody else is going to fix this for us. "We are the one we've been waiting for." (blah, blah...) I promise to do my part and I'm counting on you good people to do yours. It's the only way we're gonna get through this. 

Love to you all ️

Links:

Vote Forward

Forward Majority

    - Article by FM director explaining how they allocate money: "Want your campaign funding to be effective? Diversify."

Juneteenth

Juneteenth was actually yesterday... I posted the following on Facebook and thought I'd post it here too (since I went to the trouble of writing it!)



Happy Juneteenth! I'd heard of this holiday before, but I'd never given it much thought tbh. This year's different, for obvious reasons. Current events seem to have inspired many (and not just the usual suspects) to try to challenge themselves to learn more about these issues, to hopefully be part of the solution... which offers some hope! In that spirit I thought I'd share a few things that I've found to be interesting/challenging/thought-provoking...


- "Between the World and Me," Ta-Nehisi Coates

This book got a lot of attention when it came out a few years ago... and, yeah, it's really, really good... and highly relevant to the conversation today. Coates presents it as a letter to his teenage son. It's not that long, but there's a lot there. It's unflinching, but also poetic. It's the kind of book when you finish you pause for a moment, and then go back to the beginning and start again.

- "I Am Not Your Negro," documentary about James Baldwin

Listening to interviews with Coates I learned that Baldwin was an important inspiration for his book. ("The point of aiming for Baldwin is not to get to Baldwin. It's to stretch yourself.") That led me to this documentary, which you can watch for a dollar on YouTube. I didn't really know anything about Baldwin before tbh, but he's a fascinating character. The film's a little rough around the edges... honestly I thought it felt a little like a student film at times... but the material is so powerful that some technical imperfections hardly matter. It came out in the wake of Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Charleston, Ferguson (etc., etc.), and connects those events to Baldwin's ideas.

I would recommend watching the documentary before reading Coates' book. The connection is hard to miss. Coates even uses some of Baldwin's same specific language. (The word "dreamer" will forever have a different connotation for me now). Both writers are clearly empathetic people but also cold-eyed and unsentimental in their assessments of this country. They certainly widened my own perspective.

- "8:46," Dave Chapelle stand-up

Chappelle's latest is not comedy. Like, literally, there are no jokes. It's just Dave saying what he feels. It's not exactly "fun," but definitely worthwhile.

- "Do the Right Thing," Spike Lee

Ok, I'm sure most of you have already seen this, but wow, made 31 years ago (1989!) and it couldn't be more relevant today. I remember when I first saw it (in high school) liking it but also being a little confused... It's a morality play (it's right there in the title) in which the "bad" guys seem mostly ok and the "good" guys are hardly saints. Mookie's boss Sal eventually betrays his latent racism, but he also treats Mookie like a son. (People are complicated!) Was destroying Sal's family business in response to police brutality "doing the right thing?"

I think what the movie is getting at is it's not about good guys and bad guys, and that sometimes there is no "right thing" to be done. When the larger structures of society are built in fundamentally unfair ways it creates impossible situations. It's still an important insight in 2020. The problems we're facing are so much deeper than punishing a few "bad apples."

There is of course much more to say on that topic, but I'll leave it there for now. If you haven't seen the movie, you should. It's a classic. If you have here's an interesting video analysis of the film that goes deeper into the themes I was talking about (you can start at 1:43 and not miss anything):

Here are some other YouTube videos I thought well worth watching:

More Coates:

Excerpt from a podcast conversation between Ezra Klein and Ta-Nehisi Coates from earlier this month (you can start at 1:58 and not miss anything):

PS. Obviously there has been a LOT, LOT, LOT going on lately. It honestly feels like too much to try to even sort through. Maybe at some point I'll give it a shot, we'll see. These are truly crazy times we're living in. Hope you're well.

Lookout Joe

Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images

Well then! I had no idea how powerful a Riot Trail endorsement was! With great power comes great responsibility 🤔.

But seriously, although many people I know seem to be freaking out about yesterday, I for one am relieved. It looks like it's gonna be Bernie vs. Biden from here on out, which mean one of them (probably Joe, but who knows) will likely be able to win outright on first ballot. Although I was kind of fascinated by how a contested convention (during a pandemic!) would play out, it's undoubtedly better not to go through that. And I agree with my friend JH who said, "I feel much, much better that the narrative turns out to be something like 'black voters gave Joe the momentum to win' instead of the much nastier alternatives about superdelegates or the party establishment or billionaires or Super PACs."

Ezra Klein has an excellent article about Bernie's flawed strategy of attacking people he needs to join his coalition. In short:

If you treat voters and officials in the party you want to lead as the enemy, a lot of people in that party aren’t going to trust you to lead them.

Indeed. Eric Levitz, a Bernie supporter, makes many of the same points and more here.

Now if Bernie somehow does manage to right the ship, build a coalition and win the nomination against a single rival, he will have surely proved his mettle and deserve to be the nominee. I don't see that happening, but if it does, fine. 

But I'm glad we seem to have avoided the two worst outcomes: Bernie winning by default because everyone else splits their votes between them, or (less bad but still pretty bad) the superdelegates choosing someone else at a contested convention. 

It's also worth noting that the huge surge in turnout of young people that Bernie has been banking his candidacy on did not materialize yesterday. Good to figure this out now rather than later. Promising to get non-voters (like young people) to turn up has been the fool's gold of many a campaign over the years. It never happens. 

And as a commenter on this blog pointed out, the old crusty moderate voters who might defect if they're worried the Dem is going to screw up the economy will vote either way, possibly for Trump, not just stay home... so that is in effect a double vote loss, rather than the single votes lost from disaffected Bernie supporters sitting the election out.

There are a lot of concerns out there about Biden as a candidate, and I share those. He is far from ideal. He's not running a campaign of ideas. He naively suggests Republicans will work with him. He has trouble forming complete sentences.

But, overall, I'm breathing a huge sigh of relief today.

One person who isn't breathing a sigh of relief: Donald Trump.

Wishful Thinking

I guess if ever there's a moment to say what I think about politics on my political blog it is now. Super Tuesday is... Tomorrow! And that means my State of California and many others will be voting, after which the basic contours of the race will be set and difficult to alter.  It appears we're headed for either a clear-cut Bernie win, or no one getting a majority and therefore a contested convention, which could play out any number of ways. I have read so many arguments and counter-arguments for the different candidates it's difficult to conclude anything with any strong sense of certainty, but I will share my basic impression of the situation.

Suffice to say I am not sold on the idea that Bernie is the best candidate to beat Trump. This study calls into question the Sanders' camp's electability claims:

Democrats should not be very reassured by early polls that find Sanders faring as well against Trump as the more moderate candidates: These numbers may only look decent for Sanders because they assume he will inspire a youth turnout miracle. Our survey data reveals voters of all parties moving to Trump if Sanders is nominated, a liability papered over by young voters who claim they would be inspired to vote by Sanders alone.
The gamble Democrats supporting Sanders based on his early polls against Trump must be ready to make is that, despite the evidence to the contrary, the lowest-participating segment of the electorate will turn out at remarkably high rates because Sanders is nominated.

There have been many articles making the case that Sanders is either the most electable, or in any case a very electable candidate... I cannot say with certainty they are wrong, but my gut feeling is that all these arguments are written by people who badly want them to be true, and whose biases are affecting their judgment. More concretely, the above article notes that all the models that have Bernie winning rely on the assumption that there will be a historic surge of voting among people who typically do not vote. This seems a dicey proposition at best to me.

Jonathan Chait makes many salient points about the dangers of nominating Sanders here, but one in particular I want to call attention to is this:

In 2008, Republicans began shifting their attacks to Barack Obama after he took a delegate lead over Hillary Clinton. By the end stages of the primary, Clinton was outperforming Obama in polls against John McCain. And indeed, Clinton’s popularity continued to rise for years after Obama became the face of his party, and Clinton was spared the brunt of Republican hostility. But this hardly proved Hillary Clinton would have made a stronger 2008 nominee than Obama. It simply displays the fleeting benefit of drafting off the front-runner’s position as the principal target of intraparty attacks. Notably, Trump has been directing his criticism at almost every candidate except Sanders, whom he, in fact, frequently defends as the innocent victim of a rigged process.

To me it feels obvious that this is what's going on right now... and of course as soon as Sanders seals the deal that dynamic is going to change FAST.  There's no question that Sanders is the candidate Trump wants to face, and for all his flaws Trump does seem to have a gut instinct for what needs to happen for him to pull out another win.

Trump is a notably unpopular president, especially considering how well the economy has been doing, and is very beatable. What Trump needs to do to win is to change the election from a "referendum" on him into a "choice" between him and a seemingly equally risky opponent.  He needs to be able to say, "hey, you might not like me, but my opponent will wreck the economy!" Sanders is probably the only candidate still in the race that would be seriously vulnerable to that charge. 

I believe he would be a weak candidate in a general election, for the most obvious of reasons. Just try to step back and disengage from this particular moment and just think in general terms: Does the United States seem like the kind of a place that would elect a Socialist as President? Has that been your understanding of where this country is at? Because to me it's the type of country that elected George W. Bush after starting a disastrous war over John Kerry, and then Donald Trump after (insert list of obscenities here) over Hillary Clinton. But perhaps you have a much, much more charitable view of the American electorate!

That said, Sanders has certainly run an impressive campaign and built a potent turnout operation during this primary. Honestly, for most of the campaign I assumed he had no chance of being the nominee, because most voters named "electability" as their top criteria. Amazingly that hasn't changed, but Sanders has managed to convince people that he, the "Democratic Socialist," is in fact, the most "electable." While I don't agree, I'm impressed he's been able to convince so many people of it. If he manages to secure a majority of the delegates (either before or during the convention) then he will certainly have earned his spot at the top of the ticket!


Of the candidates still in the race, for my money the one that would make the best President is Elizabeth Warren.  In contrast to Sanders, who even if he managed to win I suspect would be an ineffective leader, I think Warren knows how to get stuff done. But, honestly, I don't see her as being any more electable than Sanders, although for different reasons. I think she is likely to evoke the same hostility as HRC did, just because of who she is. Obviously her gender is a key part of that, but it's more than just that. Most people aren't very ideological, but vote for people they can relate to... The qualities I like about EW - her razor sharp intellect, her unwillingness to suffer bullshit - are precisely the things that many Americans find alienating. Like HRC I think she will strike people as a know-it-all woman telling them how to live their lives. I feel like arguments for her electability are, like those for Sanders, made by people who very much want them to be true, and so should be treated skeptically. That said, if we're going to chance it on a riskier candidate personally I'd rather it be Warren, as I think there would be more of a pay-off in the event she won.


I literally did not decide who to vote for until today, as I filled in my ballot. But ultimately I chose the candidate I think has best chance of beating Trump, among those that have a chance of winning the nomination.  Swing state polling suggests that person is Joe Biden. While I'll concede I'm not super inspired by Biden, I do think he's basically a good guy, and with him at the top of the ticket the election will be a referendum on Trump, which bodes well for our chances. Furthermore it's possible we could do quite well down ballot with Biden at the top.  I'm certain that the balance of Congress will have far more to do with how much gets accomplished than who is President (provided it's not Trump). I think that Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Beto all all getting behind Biden speaks to their understanding that we cannot afford to blow this election. It would be catastrophic.

Of course the concern about nominating anyone other than Sanders is that there are surely some Sanders supporters who would sit out an election if their guy isn't at the top of the ticket. This is a legitimate concern. Ultimately, though, I think Sanders is the riskier proposition. First of all, anyone who would sit out an opportunity to get rid of Trump is ultimately not a reliable voter under any circumstance. In other words, if you can't be counted on to vote for Biden over Trump you can't be counted on to vote for anyone over Trump. And second of all I think any defections from Sanders supporters will be more than outweighed by the defections we will avoid from the rest of the political spectrum who are primarily concerned about not screwing up the economy.


So, after much back and forth, that's where I finally landed. But I want to add that one thing I've come to appreciate over the course of this challenging election season - having seen so many impassioned, well-reasoned, persuasive arguments on behalf of any number of candidates - is that none of us have a monopoly on the truth, nothing is certain, and that all you can really hope is that people will take it seriously, consider alternate points of view and make their best choice according to whatever criteria they find appropriate. It may sound trite, but I really do respect anyone whose made their best effort to do that, even if they came to a different conclusion than me.

The only thing that gets under my skin is when people impugn the character of other candidates. All of the candidates are flawed, to be sure. But I do think they're all trying to do what's best for the country. They have different ideas about what that means, and various personal deficiencies, and sorting through all that is why we have primary elections. But let's at least give them some credit for throwing their hat in the ring to try do right by our country, to their best understanding of what that means.

I also want to add that, despite my serious reservations about Bernie as the nominee, I certainly do not share the paranoid fears of people like David Brooks who think Sanders is going to destroy democracy. (This takedown of Brooks' column is worth the read.) Sanders, like all of us, has his personal failings, but I do believe he is a fundamentally decent person and would do his best to help the less fortunate, which is certainly admirable. If he is the nominee I will support him without reservation.

Onward to Super Tuesday and beyond!




ICYMI I highly recommend these articles and companion videos by Vox making the case for the top candidates. They all make very interesting points.



Also, completely unrelated (for now), I learned a lot from this article about Coronavirus. I have a feeling we'll be talking a lot more about this.

Everything Flows

I made a flow chart....

The NYT stops being polite and starts getting... "real"

The New York Times editorial board listens to Amy Klobuchar

I watched that NYT endorsement show, where the editorial board meets with the candidates as part of their endorsement process... it was interesting, if silly.  As others have noted, they basically turned the process into a reality tv show, which is pretty much where we already were anyway.

A few quick points:

First, while the folks on the NYT editorial board don't seem like idiots, nor do they seem particularly more informed or insightful than most people I know. They're just people taking their best guess at this, using the same bs metrics all the rest of us are using, trying to figure it out. (Some argue the 'endorsement' of Biden from the building's elevator operator may be more significant than that of the editorial board.) The confusing 'double endorsement' of completely different candidates just reenforces that they're as clueless as the rest of us.

Another thing that stuck out for me involved their take on my man Andrew Yang. Basically they liked him and thought he had good ideas (without really grappling with those ideas, which after all are quite a bit different than those of all the other candidates)... but basically just dismissed him because he has no previous elected government experience. And, I will admit, that's a valid argument! It's something that concerns me as well. 

But one of them made a comment that to my mind actually deflated the significance of this factor: something to the effect of "we already have someone with no government experience in the WH, and we see how that's going." That made me chuckle... as if Donald Trump had only had a few years being governor or a senator then he'd be doing a better job as president. Trump's flaws clearly have nothing to do with his lack of experience: at this point he has three years experience being President and he is clearly getting worse at the job, not better. 

Holding Trump up as a point of reference seems to actually strengthen the case for Yang in my opinion: Yang, in contrast to Trump, clearly has the the kind of temperament and thoughtful approach to issues that one would want to see in a President, which is obviously more important than "experience.". On the other hand Trump's lack of government experience does highlight that that is clearly not a barrier to getting elected (it may even work to a candidate's advantage)... so if electability is our most important metric (as it should be) then perhaps we should not be placing such weight on this factor. 

Now, I get it: at this moment voters are not comparing Yang to Trump, but to the other Dems running for the nomination. In that context, all things being equal, I would prefer a candidate that has government experience. I think there are nuances to getting the bureaucratic gears turning that would be helpful for a President to already understand going in.

But it's not the only thing to consider. If there were a candidate with government experience who seemed to understand both the desperate need for change in this country AND that running just a more extreme version of the same game plan as before will simply continue to divide the country, creating more partisan gridlock and the familiar frustrations of the Obama years... someone who "got" the urgent need provide relief to struggling families without playing into the 'givers/takers' paradigm that turns so many voters off ... then of course I would vote for that person! But no one like that is running, so I'm left choosing between the person who does get all that stuff and... people with government experience. 

As a side note: I've come to realize even supporters of Bernie's "revolution" don't think anything significant will change under a Sanders admin... they just want someone at least arguing for full-throated revolution while the government stagnates under what they see as inevitable gridlock.  (Good to know they don't buy into all that 'revolution' crap, but still...) Meanwhile Biden's peddling fantasies of future bi-partisan cooperation, which are preposterous on their face. Yang's the only one thinking about how to scramble and re-align our politics to get us out of this awful stalemate. It may be a long-shot plan, but at least it's a plan!

Long story short: I feel Yangs strengths outweigh his weaknesses. If someone finds his lack of government experience disqualifying I can respect that. I just felt the NYT discussion of Yang if anything exposed some of the weaknesses of that line of thinking.


Finally, the show reenforced my belief that we lost a notably talented candidate with the exit of Cory Booker. 

Freedom of Choice (is what you got)

“This is an election that will have such profound impact so take your vote seriously. And for the Democratic voters, try to vote for the person you think is most likely to win because at the end of the day that is what will matter. And not just the popular vote, but the electoral college too.” 

— Hillary Clinton, quoted by Variety.

As usual I'm with HRC: electability remains my first, second and third priority. Of course, what does that mean? Who is most likely to win? It's still a hard question to answer.  I end up counting 6 candidates running for President that I would at least consider voting for.  Generally I lean towards supporting more moderate voices that I feel would have wider appeal, but I can see other points of view.

I found this argument from Warren stirring, for example, even if it didn't completely persuade me (yet). (watch the last 32 seconds)

Speaking of Warren, this article makes the case for choosing her. It's in depth and worthwhile. It talks about her strengths in bending bureaucracies in her preferred direction ("personnel is policy"). It argues her skills would be especially valuable with a divided government that would make progress difficult to achieve through conventional means (passing laws, etc).  I would just note, however, that it makes the case why she would be a good President, but not so much about why she would be a good candidate.  

This video clip of Warren campaigning prior to the midterms perfectly captures both her appeal to people like me, and why I think much of America would hate her.  "Angry woman fights back" is not a popular genre in this country. 

All that said I won't rule out voting for her. She's smart, has strong values but with a pragmatic streak, and she is "persistent." :)


Then again I also wouldn't rule out voting for 'Sleepy Joe.' I don't think he really has any sense of purpose or vision, but his flaws aren't ones that I think most Americans would really hold against him. Beyond just being a generally decent person, his electability is really the only thing he's got going for him... but that ain't nothing!

So... about Bernie.  I wanted to share a couple articles I found helpful: a 'pro' and a 'con.'

The 'pro' is from the same series of articles that made the case for Warren above. It makes the somewhat counter-intuitive (to me, at least) case that he could be the most electable of the current Democratic front-runners. Worth considering.

But if you are considering voting for him you owe it to yourself to also read this article arguing he is un-electable, which I find ultimately more persuasive. 

I guess the counter-counter argument is maybe voters don't even care about plans/ideas at all, and really are just voting for who they find more 'authentic.' Sanders is nothing if not 'authentic,' that I will give him. But to simply assume most voters will ignore everything mentioned in the article above seems like a risky bet, and one not supported by history.

I think Sanders has a good shot at winning the nomination for the same reason Trump won the Republican nomination last time: no one wants to attack him because if they win they'll need his voters to show up for them. He's never been truly tested by anything like the onslaught of negative attacks that would come were he to be the nominee. There's certainly no shortage of material to turn him into Che Guevara in the eyes of the public. I think this can be very difficult to appreciate for those of us living in liberal enclaves surrounded by like-minded people. It's a big country, and most of it is quite different than what we experience. 

I'd also like to give a brief nod to Klobuchar, who I think is a more articulate, dynamic version of Biden. This article makes a strong case she would be a great candidate to take on Trump.  She would of course face the same uphill battle that any woman would face. (As I've noted before the issue is less people saying 'I won't vote for a woman' as it is people making all sorts of negative assumptions about women without consciously even connecting it to their gender. See: Clinton, Hillary.) That said she has a proven track record of winning elections by significantly higher margins than other Dems on the same ballot.

She also makes the valid point that a candidate with coattails (meaning someone who does so well that Dems pick up more seats in Congress as well) would actually be able to accomplish more liberal goals than a more strident candidate who ekes out a victory while negatively affecting down-ballot races, ensuring they face a defiant Congress. 

If Klobuchar catches on I could imagine voting for her.

It's unlikely I'd vote for Bloomberg, but man... he's spending some real money! I read he's already spent more on this election than was spent on Obama's entire 2012 reelection campaign. 😮 And it's focused on taking down Trump, not other Dems. And he's said he's willing to spend up to a billion dollars to defeat Trump, even if it's Sanders or Warren on the ticket (who he admits not caring for). I'm not gonna bad mouth someone like that. And I won't completely rule out voting for him. He'd be a strong candidate.

I actually like Buttigieg (he seems to inspire a special kind of revulsion in some people, haha)... but his support in the black community is in the single digits... by which I mean the actual number of his black supporters 😂. A Democrat cannot get elected without strong support from African Americans. He's got a bright future ahead of him I'm sure, but this is not the role for him.

I was hoping Deval Patrick might make some waves because from what I've read about him he seems like he could be a really strong candidate. But I hardly ever hear anything about him. It's like he's barely even running. I wish he'd get on it, because he brings a lot to the table. But it's probably too late at this point.

I still think my guy Yang would be both an excellent candidate and President, for reasons I outlined here. California, where I currently live, votes on 'super Tuesday,' immediately after the first four states.  If Yang cracks the top four in any of the early states I will certainly vote for him... and maybe even if he doesn't.  

I remember way back in 2004 I was excited about Howard Dean, but by the time the race came to New York, where I lived at the time, he was toast and it was down to Kerry and Edwards. For some reason I thought Edwards was preferable of the two so I voted for him. I came to regret that... of course Edwards ended up being kind of a creep, but also I really liked Dean and I felt like I should have stayed true to myself. 

Yang has really inspired me and I feel like even if (as seems likely) he doesn't catch on this time his ideas will persevere, because they are good ones. And, hey, it's not too late for him to catch on... anything could happen! 🤷

But I probably won't decide who to vote for until pretty much the day of. It's that kind of election!

P.S. Here's a Youtube playlist I put together of mostly UBI/tech/Yang videos, with a few on Russian disinformation as well. Lots of good stuff in there!

This Moment

We're having another 'moment.' They seem to come more and more frequently. Wanted to quickly share a few articles I thought captured the current dynamics.

These two are especially interesting taken together:

"What Americans Do Now Will Define Us Forever," by Adam Serwer

and

"Trump Betting Indecency Can Win in America," by Andrew Sullivan

They compliment each other as they make similar points but also diverge, most notably on how Dems have responded to Trump. I'm more in tune with Serwer, but Sullivan's points shouldn't be discounted (even if occasionally he does write idiotic things).

After you read those consider this important reminder:

"Trump's Racism is Part of His Larger Con," by Matthew Yglesias

What he's doing is despicable in its own right and it matters, for sure, but let's not forget why he's doing it.

If you're looking for even more to read there's:

"Donald Trump Hates America," by David Brooks

It covers some of the same ground as Serwer and Sullivan, although more in Brooks' calm, erudite fashion. (He doesn't even bother to go after Dems.) Mostly just wanted to give him credit for writing it and proving not all Republicans are awful. (I know there are others: Charlie Sykes, etc. But it's a short list.)

Oh, and come to think of it, that article would pair well with (articles are like wine and cheese) this one:

"Trump is the Most Unpatriotic Presidential Candidate in American History," by Jonathan Chait

So true.


Have a great weekend!

Secure the Bag

If you're a Democrat thinking about who to support in the upcoming primary, let me suggest a name that might not be on your radar: Andrew Yang. There's still lots of time before voting starts and I'm not sure who I'll end up voting for myself... but for now I like Yang because he's campaigning on a great idea that no one else is even talking about: Universal Basic Income (UBI). Yang's plan is for every single adult American citizen to receive $1000 every month, no strings attached. The free market still reigns, we just don't start at "0". We "raise the floor," to essentially the poverty line, meaning everyone will have enough to at least technically not be in poverty.

The general idea of UBI is not new. It has been championed by Milton Friedman, MLK and even (going way back) Thomas Paine. There's nothing in the law that prevents it. Richard Nixon proposed a UBI which even passed the House before he was talked out of it by one of his advisors. Hillary Clinton considered running on some form of UBI in 2016 but decided against it in part because it was too "hard for people to grasp." Most people are still unfamiliar with the idea, but it has pockets of support on both the left and the right of the political spectrum.

To be clear, this is not a matter of just 'printing money' and giving it away... Yang suggests we pay for it in large part with a 10% Value Added Tax (VAT) to be levied at each stage of the production and distribution of goods. The nice thing about a VAT system is the taxes are difficult for corporations to evade with fancy accounting. The disadvantage traditionally is since the companies will pass them down to consumers in the form of higher prices it tends to be regressive... BUT, that regressiveness would be more than offset by the progressiveness of UBI. Unless you're spending many thousands of dollars a month on consumer goods (not including food, medical expenses, rent/mortgage) you will come out ahead in this scenario. And all that extra spending money everyone will suddenly have would, uh... get spent! It would turbocharge the economy while dramatically reducing poverty.

I think it's a good idea under any conditions, but it's especially relevant now as automation transforms our economy. As Yang likes to ask his audiences, malls are closing all across the country... why? We know the answer: Amazon. Is Amazon hiring tons of people to make up for all the jobs lost from these mall/store closings? No. Look at footage of their giant shipping centers and you will see robots packing things and moving boxes around, with just a few humans overseeing the whole thing. It's a triumph of efficiency, but it means lots of jobs are simply.... gone. Poof. A hundred years ago people were predicting that by now robots would be doing all the work and we'd all be living lives of leisure. Only half that prediction is coming true: Robots are starting to do the work, but major companies are reaping all the rewards, leaving everyone else scrambling. Cars are already being built by machines. Soon shipping trucks will be self-driving. Trump blames job loss on Mexicans and China, but robots may be the real culprit. (Hence Yang's slogan: "Humanity First")

Not everyone agrees automation is about to cause major job losses. This article argues automation will create as many jobs as it destroys, and the new jobs will require more human ingenuity and less drudgery. I'm not sure that helps an unskilled laborer who has recently been automated out of a job though. As Yang points out, teaching coal miners to code is not the answer. The current Dem party line is we need more infrastructure spending to create jobs, which is certainly true! But that alone, even on a large scale, is not going to be enough to address the challenges we're facing.

There is one more MAJOR potential advantage I see to UBI: It could finally get us out of this political stalemate we've been stuck in. Can we all at least agree that our current politics suck?? The trouble with government programs that help people with this or that is many people perceive that the government is taking their money and giving it to 'other' people. There's a lot of baggage attached to that idea... you could write books on it. But with UBI we can side-step that whole bitter argument. In this case every single person... whether you live on a farm, in the suburbs, in a penthouse, or on the curb... EVERYONE gets $1000, every month. Currently we have smorgasbord of different programs targeting different communities, trying to solve different problems, each with their own bureaucracies and regulations... but dividing people up like that, even if effective from a policy standpoint, is bound to create resentments that can be exploited by those who would rather just let the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else.  Fox News is incredibly good at turning people against their own self-interest, but will they be able to convince people to be against receiving $1000 a month? It would be fun to see them try!

"So, if UBI's so great, why hasn't it happened?," you might ask. "There's got to be a catch." Well, this Mother Jones article mentions one possible sticking point:

to receive UBI, citizens would have to choose between the $1,000 or any existing welfare benefits—potentially including Social Security, disability insurance, food stamps, and housing assistance. And it’s unclear whether Yang’s UBI would be worth that trade-off for many low-income families, instead leaving the program as a boost to middle- and upper-income people.

while a “generous UBI” could replace the need for most welfare programs, it could also run the risk of redistributing funds away from the lowest-income families.

Current welfare recipients would receive either their current benefits or the UBI, whichever's greater... So UBI could potentially be less helpful for the most needy and more of a boon for the middle class. I understand the concern, but I think this might be the price of getting everyone onboard.

Paul Krugman, who is right about most things, says he's "not a UBI guy," arguing that UBI is very costly and would require massive new taxes to pay for, making it a very big lift politically. He points out that universal health care (expand the ACA, allow people to buy into Medicare) and universal child care would cost a fraction of UBI and would provide more bang for your buck, so we should just do those. I'm sure he's right as far as it goes, but if those things are "easier" to do, why haven't we done them? Because they're not that easy! They should be no-brainers, but evidently they're not... Again, I think that's because Fox News can convince people that even something like universal health care, a service everyone will need sooner or later, ultimately amounts to the government taking your money to give to 'those people.' (do we need to pretend we don't know who 'those people' are?)

I think of UBI as a kind of 'shoot the moon' strategy. A plan "so crazy it just might work." Yes, it amounts to a pretty major restructuring of our economy, with large new taxes funding a redistribution of wealth to all citizens... But it's hard to pit people against each other when everyone gets the same amount of money.  And while it's a big price tag, legislatively at least it's no more complicated to enact than passing a tax cut, and it doesn't require creating a large bureaucracy to implement. (The IRS could handle it.) If the political will is there, it's do-able!

So, join the Yang Gang and "secure the bag!" I will concede Andrew Yang is unlikely to be our next president... I'll likely end up voting for whoever I think has the best shot at beating Trump (and enthusiastically supporting whoever wins the nom). But I'm hoping Yang will at least attract enough attention to get this idea into mainstream discussion, in the way that Bernie managed to reframe the conversation last time around. Yang's already made it into the first Democratic debate... keep an eye out for him and hear him out! 

Here's a general overview of UBI:

And here's libertarian hero Milton Friedman making the case for UBI:

'Medicare-for-All' as the Wall

'Medicare-for-All' as an issue seems to playing out a lot like Trump's wall.  Both examples serve as good rallying cries for the base, as well as simple ways of declaring one's priorities.  And neither one will actually happen.

It has been suggested that Trump wasn't committed to a literal wall, but that it symbolized his priorities, namely cracking down on illegal immigration and tightening up the border. If that were true it would have been effective symbol, but clearly at this point we can see that Trump has become enamored with an actual physical wall. This is probably mostly because it would serve as a monument to himself. But it's also true he was willing to let it go until Ann Coulter and others started calling him a sell-out. So he's decided to die on this particular hill, and his poll numbers, never great but always stable, are finally starting to sink. He's boxed himself in and politically bleeding out.

Medicare-for-All likewise effectively signals a politician's priorities in a simple, easy to understand way. And, likewise, it will never happen. Not just because of the insurance lobby, but because of the American public. Medicare-for-all polls well... until it doesn't. Until people are told their taxes will go up, and that they will lose the insurance plans they have.  As Jonathan Chait explains:

If you could sit down face to face with every American and calmly talk them through the numbers step by step, you could probably convince them to feeling comfortable giving up employer-sponsored insurance. Since you can’t do that, the only option is passing a bill in a hysterical atmosphere where the insurance industry and conservatives bombard the public with warnings of massive middle-class tax hikes and tens of millions of Americans losing their current insurance to get moved onto a government plan.
If we didn’t have an employer-based system already, it might be politically feasible to build a single-payer system. But the politics of uprooting that deformed tree are extremely imposing. 

This is the reality that some sectors of the left would like to just wave away. I'm old enough to remember all the way back in 2010, when Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate while controlling the House and the Presidency (a combination unlikely to occur again anytime soon), and were only barely able to drag Obamacare, a far less radical piece of legislation, across the finish line. It was excruciating and exhausting. And they paid for it at the ballot box. It was worth it, but they paid for it. To think a newly elected Democratic president would simply be able to wipe out our entire health insurance industry is just absurd.

But like Trump and his wall, at some point there will come a reckoning when reality has to be acknowledged.  At that point the Ann Coulters of the left will scream 'corporate sell-out!' Hopefully our next leader will have more sense than Trump when that day comes and deal with political reality.  Obamacare insured 20 million formerly uninsured people.  Further improvements could insure even more. Insisting on Medicare-for-all will insure zero new people, because it won't happen. But its supporters will at least be able to feel morally superior to everyone else, so...