Of course Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar were persuaded to drop out before Super Tuesday so that Joe Biden could get more votes. Polls suggest it is working, and that there has been a considerable swing to Biden in the Super Tuesday states over the past couple of days. It appears that the not-Sanders voters are moving rapidly to Biden. If that appearance holds up in today’s results, we’re probably looking at a Biden nomination. Damn.
This could very well be a replay of 2016. Biden is supposed to be the “safe,” establishment choice, so the sheeple dutifully vote for him. I’m saying right now that if Biden is the nominee and he loses to Trump, we all go to Washington and absolutely trash the DNC headquarters on South Capitol St SE. And then we march on the MSNBC studios in Rockefeller Center. I’ll stop short of calling for tar and feathers, for now. See also Paul Waldman, Sanders is a terribly risky nominee. But so is Biden.
Young folks, you’d damn well better get your butts out to vote today. It may be your last chance.
I was looking forward to the Super Tuesday returns, thinking it should be a good night for Sanders, and now I am bummed. At least we don’t have to listen to Chris “Tweety” Matthews any more. See Margaret Sullivan on the real reason Matthews had to go.
Assuming we had a competent federal government, what would it be doing now to prepare for the spread of Covid-19? Julia Belluz of Vox interviewed an actual expert, Dr. Bruce Aylward, who is a veteran epidemiologist and also an assistant director general of the World Health Organization. He has been in China to observe and study what the Chinese are doing. China must be doing something right, because the number of new cases has dropped dramatically. Aylward believes from his own observations that this decrease in cases is real and not just Chinese government propaganda.
So what did the Chinese do that we ought to be doing? Dr. Aylward said that the first most important thing is to identify new cases, isolate them, and trace who they’ve been incontact with. This must be done quickly. Dr. Aylward said,
So, No. 1, if you want to get speed of response, your population has to know this disease. You find any population in the West and ask them what are the two presenting signs you have to be alert to. What would you say?
It turns out the two presenting signs are dry cough and fever. I didn’t know that either.
Your population is your surveillance system. Everybody has got a smartphone, everybody can get a thermometer. That is your surveillance system. Don’t rely on this hitting your health system, because then it’s going to infect it. You’ve got this great surveillance system out there — make sure the surveillance system is primed. Make sure you’re ready to act on the signals that come in from that surveillance system. You’ve got to be set up to rapidly assess whether or not they really have those symptoms, test those people, and, if necessary, isolate and trace their contacts.
In other words, everyone needs to know that if they develop a fever and dry cough, get yourself tested immediately. But Dr. Aylward doesn’t think it’s a good idea to have everyone go to their GPs for this, especially since infected people are likely to infect everyone else in the waiting room.
China set up a separate health network that dealt only with testing and treating infected patients.
In China, they have set up a giant network of fever hospitals. In some areas, a team can go to you and swab you and have an answer for you in four to seven hours. But you’ve got to be set up — speed is everything.
So make sure your people know [about the virus]. Make sure you have mechanisms for working with them very quickly through your health system. Then enough public health infrastructure to investigate cases, identify the close contacts, and then make sure they remain under surveillance. That’s 90 percent of the Chinese response.
Yeah, not gonna happen here. What are we doing, in fact?
Our so-called Covid-19 point man, Mike Pence, has announced more travel restrictions affecting Iran, Italy and South Korea. Okay, but what are we doing about the growing number of cases here? Pence also said that large numbers of test kits are being mailed to state and local clinics. Okay, but which clinics? Some of the kits are going to state public health labs, but I don’t know where my state public health lab is, either.
Say I’m an average citizen and I develop a fever and dry cough. Or I develop a rash and stomach ache; nobody is telling me what signs to look for. Anyway, if I think I should be tested, where do I go? We’re not getting any directions. And will it cost me anything? What if I don’t have insurance? What if I’m in the country illegally?
The only advice I’ve seen so far is that if you are worried you have the coronavirus, call your health care provider. So we’re not following the Chinese protocols explained by Dr. Aylward.
It may be that some states will step in and create an effective response apparatus for their citizens, but since I’m living in Missouri, there’s no hope that’s going to happen here.
Health and Human Services Officials respond to the Covid-19 virus.
To be clear, we have no idea at this point how bad things will get. Maybe this will all be over in a matter of weeks (though that’s not what the experts are saying), and maybe the economic impact will be minor.
But we do know that the president is intensely worried about the potential that the virus could cause even a temporary economic slowdown. Which is why the administration is contemplating “Tax Cuts 2.0,” with benefits focused on the neediest among us, i.e., corporations and rich people.
Last summer I would not have guessed that the race for the nomination would come down to a contest between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. Yet here we are.
The nerds at Five Thirty Eight have either Biden or Sanders winning all of the Super Tuesday states with the exception of Minnesota, which is expected to go to Amy Klobuchar. (Sanders is polling second in Minnesota.) The Super Tuesday states represent 40 percent of the U.S. population, I have read. Note that all of these states divide up delegates proportionately, so that second- and third- and sometimes fourth-place winners can pick up some delegates. Just not as many.
It’s interesting, though, that Sanders is winning in blue states and Biden in red ones, with a couple of exceptions. Who is ahead in the Super Tuesday polling (other than Minnesota) —
Sanders is currently polling ahead of Biden in these states (or territory):
American Samoa (caucus)
Massachusetts (Warren polling second)
Texas (but within the margin of error; this one is a coin toss)
Utah (Warren polling second)
Vermont (Buttigieg and Warren are close to a tie for second)
Biden is currently polling ahead of Sanders in these states:
Oklahoma (Bloomberg polling second)
If the voting matches the polls, Sanders still will be ahead in delegates after Super Tuesday. There will be several more primaries on May 10, and the polling follows the same pattern — Sanders is ahead in bluer states; Biden in redder ones; no one else looks to be a major factor.
Side notes: Bloomberg was counting on winning some Super Tuesday states to make a claim for the nomination, and it doesn’t appear he will win any of them. He may pick up only a handful of delegates.
Indiana doesn’t vote until May, but poor Pete Buttigieg currently is trailing both Sanders (in first place) and Biden (in second) in his own state. Buttigieg is not doing well anywhere, as far as I can see. He may pick up one delegate in California this week. It occurs to me that Buttigieg has been running to appeal to older voters with policy ideas that are barely distinguishable from Biden’s. But the old folks are much less likely to vote for a young, gay man than younger ones. He might have done a lot better with much more progressive positions.
Back to Biden-Sanders: The most notable thing about a Biden-Sanders contest is that it amounts to a contest between generations, even though the candidates themselves are both septuagenarians. I wrote last November about the Democratic voter generation gap that put Biden way ahead with voters over 45 and Sanders way ahead with voters under 45. That hasn’t changed. Perry Bacon of FiveThirtyEight wrote last week that “In fact, age might be the most important fault line in the 2020 Democratic primary.” In Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, the percentage of under-45 voters who voted for Biden was in single digits. But in Iowa and Nevada, at least, Biden came in first among over-45 voters. Sanders did slightly better with the old folks than Biden did with the young ones, but he slaughtered the rest of the field with under-45 voters.
Indeed, the Democratic Party appears to be in the midst of a generational fight that started in 2016 and is continuing now. For example, the left-leaning but gray-haired commentators on MSNBC have been deeply frustrated by the rise of Sanders. Conversely, it’s hard to find much Biden support on Twitter, which tends to be used by younger people and more liberal Democrats. Buttigieg and Warren, while not as liberal or as anti-establishment as Sanders, are also to the left of Biden, which in part explains why the ex-vice president isn’t the clear second-favorite of younger Democrats either.
It’s significant to me that Biden isn’t even trying to win younger voters:
This all looked fairly savvy (or at least somewhat harmless) … until voting started. And you wonder now whether the Biden campaign could have at least competed for young voters by taking a different approach.
This is the same kind of tunnel vision that killed Hillary Clinton’s candidacy in 2016. She, and now Biden, are weirdly blind and deaf to younger voters and can’t address their concerns without sounding condescending. And it’s also the case, Bacon continues, that younger voters are not at all interested in a replay of the Obama Administration, so Biden’s appeal to Obama nostalgia just doesn’t work with them.
My sympathies are with the young folks, who are facing obstacles us geezers didn’t have to deal with. The “revolution” they seek is not a violent one, but one in which the resources and priorities of government are significantly realigned. They want major changes to long-standing policies — on climate change, health care, student loans, economic inequality, the cost of housing. Most of the people running for the nominations have instead brushed off the possibility of big change with the usual platitudes about practicality and what’s “do-able” and real solutions to real problems. The exceptions are Sanders and Warren, and for some reason the young voters appear to have abandoned Warren and are standing with Sanders. I am not sure why that happened, but there it is.
And of course, as soon as Joe Biden won the South Carolina primary, he was all over television talk shows with the line “I think people aren’t looking for revolution. They’re looking for results.” And we all know that “results” mean “tweaks to the status quo so minor you may not even notice them.”
For older Americans, for whom the old status quo worked reasonably well, big change may seem frightening. For younger people, it’s the status quo that is frightening. Because it’s not working for them.
But that status quo is awfully entrenched. And it really, really wants Biden to win the nomination.
To date I’ve yet to see a persuasive case for why Sanders is certain to have less of a chance of winning than an uninspiring “moderate” candidate like former vice president Joe Biden or former New York Mike Bloomberg, both of whom have shown themselves to be weak campaigners of the kind who have lost presidential elections many times before.
The idea that establishment Democrats are horrified about a Sanders nomination solely because of their concerns about the outcome on November 3 is awfully hard to swallow. What seems more likely is that Sanders challenges, disparages and dismisses the entire political structure of which they are a part. …
… So when either a Never Trumper or an establishment Democrat considers the world Sanders would make, they aren’t sure what their place in it would be. And that may be what has them really scared.
This is turning into a contest between the past versus the future.
It seems clear to me that the old political order that emerged from the chaos of the 1960s has run its course and is not sustainable. It is time for it to give way to something new. Only the Democratic Party in a position to lean into that change and benefit from it, while the Republicans have painted themselves into a corrupt, backward, xenophobic corner. The Democratic Party rejected change in 2016, and lost. Will it do so again?
Oh, and young folks? Please vote. Biden won big in South Carolina because two-thirds of the people who showed up to vote were over 45. If you stay home from primaries, don’t gripe because the geezer who gets the nomination isn’t the one you wanted.
Mandatory Credit: Photo by Elise Amendola/AP/Shutterstock (10551224k) Former Vice President Joe Biden, left, embraces Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., during a Democratic presidential primary debate, hosted by ABC News, Apple News, and WMUR-TV at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H Election 2020 Debate, Manchester, USA – 07 Feb 2020
Pence famously does not believe in science. But never fear; Pence is merely in charge of the messaging about the coronavirus. “The White House moved on Thursday to tighten control of coronavirus messaging by government health officials and scientists, directing them to coordinate all statements and public appearance with the office of Vice President Mike Pence, according to several officials familiar with the new approach.” So Pence will be in charge of being sure no one will know what’s going on. Public health officials will no longer be able to speak without being censored. It’s not clear if anyone is in charge of the science.
I know I don’t feel better already.
It’s possible the pandemic will not be as severe as feared. But even if the spread of the disease is contained in the U.S., it’s likely we’re going to feel some effects. See Matt Stoller in Wired — Covid-19 Will Mark the End of Affluence Politics.
As Jon Stokes notes, we will, in all likelihood, be locking down travel in some areas of the US for several weeks, as they did in China. People may be advised against gathering in large groups. It’s not clear what any of this will mean for campaigning or primary voting, whether most of us will vote by mail or have our votes delayed.
Moreover, the coronavirus is going to introduce economic conditions with which few people in modern America are familiar: the prospect of shortages. After 25 years of offshoring and consolidation, we now rely on overseas production for just about everything. Now in the wake of the coronavirus, China has shut down much of its production; South Korea and Italy will shut down as well. Once the final imports from these countries have worked their way through the supply chains and hit our shores, it could be a while before we get more. This coronavirus will reveal, in other words, a crisis of production—and one that’s coming just in time for a presidential election.
Not only are many medications used in the United States manufactured overseas, but critical ingredients — and the chemicals used to make them — also are overwhelmingly made in China and other countries. The supply chain’s roots now run so deep that it’s difficult to fully anticipate where critical shortages could emerge.
Rosemary Gibson, author of the book “China Rx” and a senior adviser at the Hastings Center, a bioethics think tank, said China has a “global choke hold” on the chemical components that make up key ingredients.
It might have occurred to someone that it was really stupid of the U.S. to become dependent on another country for our medicines. But of course, nobody is really in charge of these things but the glorious Free Market, which doesn’t give a fig about who lives and who dies.
Our lack of a national health care system also makes us more vulnerable. Helaine Olen writes in WaPo about a concerned citizen who came down with flu-like symptoms after returning from a trip to China. So the man went to a hospital to be tested. It appears the tests were negative, but he got slapped with a $3,000 invoice for a blood test and nasal swab.
It’s very possible there are people among us already carrying the virus but staying away from doctors because they are uninsured. “We don’t want people to be wondering whether they can afford to visit the doctor if they think they’ve got this contagious and possibly deadly disease,” Olen writes. “But by happenstance, ideology and shortsighted, penny-wise-pound-foolish thinking, we’ve set up a situation that will force many to do just that.”
Don’t forget to reflect on all the food service and other service workers who don’t get paid sick days.
Stoller writes that the pandemic could put an end to the politics of affluence.
Affluence politics is not the politics of being wealthy, though, but rather the politics of not paying attention to what creates wealth in the first place. That is to say, it’s the politics of ignoring our ability to make and distribute the things people need.
This is something we’ve been doing more and more badly, I think. Somehow, our economy is not responding to the desperate need for lower-cost homes in urban areas. It is not providing affordable insulin. It is not giving us safe drinking water. On the other hand, Vox reported in 2018 that millions of dollars worth of unsold merchandise is destroyed every year to be sure a surplus doesn’t erode the value of brands. Something is deeply and fundamentally screwy.
Stoller compares the potential disruptions of the Covid-19 pandemic to the Great Depression.
Congress held hearings, but businessmen, academics, and bankers proffered only belt-tightening. Within the Republican establishment, President Herbert Hoover worked 18-hour days, exhorting confidence while refusing to take even basic steps such as having the government guarantee bank deposits. Instead, his administration’s army attacked hungry protesters in Washington, DC, a move that prompted an angry Republican congressman, Fiorello La Guardia of New York, to remind the president: “Soup is cheaper than tear gas bombs.”
For the record, I don’t believe Hoover ordered the attacks on the bonus marchers. I understand that was done on the initiative of Gen. Douglas MacArthur.
Meanwhile on the Democratic side, conservatives and progressives in the party were locked in a bitter battle for the nomination. Many Democrats agreed with Hoover. Maryland governor and presidential candidate Albert Ritchie, for instance, argued that we should rely “less on politics, less on laws, less on government.” Another candidate, Speaker of the House John Nance Garner, claimed the greatest threat was the “tendency toward socialism and communism” and pledged a massive cut in government spending, as well as a sales tax increase. Others turned to extreme racism and xenophobia. Only Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who went on to win a contested convention, campaigned on aggressive government involvement in the economy—or as he put it, a “workable program of reconstruction,” which later became the New Deal.
It does look as if we’re setting ourselves up for a replay of these arguments in 2020. But again, it’s possible this situation will blow over in a month or two and be forgotten. Until next time.
I lasted about thirty minutes before I remembered that nobody was paying me to watch last night’s Dem debate, so I changed channels. What a mess.
CBS officially took over the title of Worst Presidential Debate Moderators from CNN. I don’t know if all the questions were insipid, since I didn’t watch all of the debate, but the moderators weren’t doing any moderating. It was out of control. And the audience should have been cautioned to remain quiet; the cheering and booing just added to the general awfulness of the evening.
I sincerely hope someone in charge of things in the Democratic Party, if there is such a person, is seriously thinking about what might be done to make the debates into events useful for voters and not just bad reality shows. Indeed, when I tuned into CBS last night, for a moment I thought I had found a game show. The music and razzle-dazzle set were clearly more suitable for The Price Is Right. The original Gong Show was more dignified, in fact. It is too painfully obvious that the moderators are mostly concerned about putting on a lively show. One wonders how much they understand the issues they are asking about.
Part of the problem goes back to all the things that are wrong with the way news media covers politics in the U.S. It’s all horse races and the stoking of controversies (and if there are no controversies to stoke, improvise one). Very little television political programming presents anything substantive about issues or about the deep backgrounds of the candidates. The popular “roundable discussion” format is especially bad at informing the public, IMO. It’s the same few ubiquitous people spouting the conventional wisdom of Georgetown cocktail parties.
Of the debates we’ve had for this nomination, IMO the best — or the least cringe-inducing, anyway — was the November 20 debate moderated by Rachel Maddow, Andrea Mitchell, Ashley Parker, and Kristen Welker. If you missed it, you can watch it all here. I don’t necessarily think this is the template for better debates, but it wasn’t an embarassment to humanity.
We’ve got one more Dem debate on March 15. This will be moderated by CNN again, so I have little hope it will be an improvement over last night.
I am assuming the eventual Democratic nominee will be debating Donald Trump. General election debates are conducted under the auspices of a group called the Commission on Presidential Debates, which has scheduled three presidential debates and one veep debate for later this year. It wouldn’t surprise me if Trump fails to show up for some of them, or all of them. But before any of those turn into a disaster, what can be done to improve them?
Only the microphone of the candidate speaking should be turned on.
There should be no live audience for the debate.
When a candidate’s comments go over time, that much additional time should be added to the other candidate’s next comments.
That third items might not work on in a multi-person debate, but I do think most of the debates have been marred by not allowing the candidates enough time to answer the questions they’ve been asked. Last night’s rules allowed candidates “one minute and 15 seconds to answer, and 45 seconds for follow-ups.” That’s absurd. Ask fewer questions but allow more time for answers, I say. Let people go a little deeper into issues.
The first two of those three items would have been a big help last night. But one reason candidates interrupt and talk over other candidates is that if they don’t, they may be overlooked. In past years moderators have focused on the candidates considered most likely to be the nominee and ignored the less-likelies. That is neither fair nor right; the networks should not assume who the eventual winner will be. Everyone who qualifies for a debate deserves equal time, as much as possible.
That said, the Democrats need to rethink their criteria for qualifying for debates. If you’ve got too many candidates in the debates already and one of them is Marianne Williamson, you’re doing it wrong. (And I bet they’re really sorry they changed the rules so that Michael Bloomberg could be in the last two.)
Back in 2015 the New York Times published a series on better debating. One of the suggestions involved real-time fact checking.
A smarter approach would draw on the databases of nonpartisan fact-checking outfits like PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker. It would focus on providing factual context, not “gotcha” moments. One way to do this is with a ticker running relevant fact-checks across the bottom of the screen, along the lines of “FactCheck.org: Mexico and 29 other countries have birthright citizenship.” The fact-checkers already do a remarkably good job of live-tweeting from their archives as old claims come up again during debates.
A better idea, though, is to set aside time for a special round of follow-up questions based on previously published fact-checks. Again, forget buzzers or sirens: The moderator would simply give candidates a chance to respond on the merits. They would be free to clarify their position or explain why a particular correction was off base. The campaigns already follow fact-checkers closely and know exactly which claims have been found wanting.
Done right, real-time fact-checking would reward debaters who favor careful arguments over eye-popping claims, encouraging politicians to police themselves. (There’s some evidence this works.) It might also make us smarter audiences of political theater. A fact-check isn’t always the final word, but it can push the conversation onto firmer ground.
This makes a lot of sense to me. One of my issues with last night’s debate was that the alleged cost of Medicare for All went up every time an opponent of Bernie Sanders talked about it This is from last night:
KLOBUCHAR: No, the math does not add up. In fact, just on “60 Minutes” this weekend, he said he wasn’t going to rattle through the nickels and the dimes. Well, let me tell you how many nickels and dimes we’re talking about: nearly $60 trillion. Do you know how much that is, for all of his programs?
SANDERS: Not true.
KLOBUCHAR: That is three times the American economy — not the federal government — the entire American economy.
I have no idea where she got $60 trillion, except out of her own ass. I did find one article that claimed all of Sanders’s proposals put together — including the Green New Deal, free college, reducing homelessness and writing off medical debt — would come up to $60 trillion over ten years. The same article says the estimated cost of Medicare for All “ranges from just less than $31 billion (from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget) to $34 trillion (from the center-left Urban Institute).”
But, peeps, the high estimate of $34 trillion in ten years is less than we’re spending now on the system we’ve got. That’s what nobody ever gets to say without being talked over. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “U.S. health care spending grew 4.6 percent in 2018, reaching $3.6 trillion or $11,172 per person.” That’s $36 trillion over ten years, in both public and private spending, even assuming costs don’t keep going up. Medicare for All would not be in addition to that spending; it would replace that spending. More would be paid by taxes; less would be out of pocket. The burden on individuals, especially lower income individuals, would be reduced, and unlike the system we have now, everyone would be covered. For less money than we’re spending now.
This is why the debates make me crazy.
Sanders cited a Lancet study saying that the U.S. would save a ton of money by moving to Medicare for All. Here is the study. It’s a real study, it’s in Lancet, it says what Bernie says it says. Maybe the study is screwy; I have no way to judge. Here is a Washington Post article about the study that analyzes it and seems to think it’s legit, although there are a great many variables and a great many ways costs can be determined. Anyone who claims that he has THE real true cost is a moron.
But yes, I would love it if there were some way to have challenged Amy Klobuchar on where the bleep she got $60 trillion for Medicare for All, and to verify that yes, there is a Lancet study that says what Sanders says it says.
Another point of contention that came up before I changed channels was Pete Buttigieg’s sources of funds. Sanders said that Buttigieg’s campaign had gotten funding from more than 50 billionaires. Buttigieg took great umbrage at this and said that it’s “untrue about my campaign. The idea that most of my campaign is funded by billionaires.” Which isn’t exactly what Bernie said, but never mind.
I went to Open Secrets. Open Secrets says that Buttigieg had received more money from large donations (56 percent) than from small ones (43 percent). But I don’t know about the 50 billionaires. A Forbes magazine article from December named 40 billionaire Buttigieg backers, not 50. If someone else wants to dig deeper into this, be my guest; it may be in public FEC data. (Bernie, by contrast, has received 55 percent of his contributions from small contributors and 35 percent from large ones, Open Secrets says.)
So yes, I’d say that something needs to be done to discourage candidates from making false claims about the other candidates, because this happens every election, and it just confuses people. If the candidates knew they would be fact checked in real time, it would certain help keep them more honest.
The real problem is that the candidates are not challenged on the substance of their arguments. And the fault there, unfortunately, lies with the moderators. The party machines demand they not challenge the candidates, and those moderators who dare to do so don’t return to the debate stage.
The stock markets fell like a rock yesterday, and continued falling today. The two-day total came to 1,910 points, it says here.
This is part of a global sell-off triggered by news that the corona virus, or COVID-19, is breaking out all over the planet and has passed the pandemic “tripping point.” Still, I wouldn’t have panicked, except that Larry Kudlow says everything is fine.
National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow tried on Tuesday to assuage concerns over the cornavirus and its impact on the U.S. economy.
“We have contained this. I won’t say [it’s] airtight, but it’s pretty close to airtight,” Kudlow told CNBC’s Kelly Evans on “The Exchange.” He added that, while the outbreak is a “human tragedy,” it will likely not be an “economic tragedy.”
When else did Kudlow say everything was fine? Right before the 2008 financial crisis.
“Despite all the doom and gloom from the economic pessimistas, the resilient U.S. economy continues moving ahead,” Kudlow wrote on Dec. 7, 2007, in National Review, predicting that gloomy forecasters would “wind up with egg on their faces.” Kudlow, who previously derided as “bubbleheads” those who warned about a housing bubble, now wrote that “very positive” news in housing should “cushion” falling home sales and prices.
“There’s no recession coming. The pessimistas were wrong. It’s not going to happen,” wrote Kudlow. “ .?.?. The Bush boom is alive and well. It’s finishing up its sixth consecutive year with more to come. Yes, it’s still the greatest story never told.” …
… Even as trouble became clear, Kudlow, a CNBC pundit who is not trained in economics, wrote a Feb. 5, 2008, column in National Review saying he was “still betting on and buying Goldilocks [a just-right scenario] for the long run.” He wrote, “Maybe we are going to have a mild correction. Maybe not,” adding: “I’m going to bet that the economy will be rebounding sometime this summer, if not sooner. We are in a slow patch. That’s all. It’s nothing to get up in arms about.”
This would be a serious situation even if we had a competent national government. But we don’t. Trump is utterly useless. His administration is utterly useless. After weeks of dithering Trump put together a virus task force. One member of the task force, the utterly useless Ken Cuccinelli, was soon on Twitter asking how to get to the online map showing how the virus had spread. Yes, I do not feel reassured.
During a hearing called to address the issue Tuesday morning, Sen. Joe Kennedy (R-La.) teed off on Acting Homeland Security Director Chad Wolf for being unable to answer basic questions about the potential of an outbreak in the U.S. …
…The confusion can be traced back to the president, who seems utterly unwilling to acknowledge the reality of the virus, opting instead to stick his fingers in his ears and repeatedly insist everything is going to be fine and the administration is taking care of it. His belief that the virus will simply “go away” is likely based on how past pandemic scares have come and gone, but those diseases were contained in part because the government was working in tandem with the CDC. Now that Trump is in charge, there’s appears to be a disconnect as the White House tries to project a rosy view of the crisis while the agencies tasked with handling it are forced to work in reality.
Adding to the problem is that Trump has slashed funding for the CDC, the National Institute of Health, and the Agency for International Development, while dismantling the entire global health team in charge of handling pandemics. As the CDC has struggled to obtain critical information about the outbreak from China, Trump has praised the nation’s response, reportedly because he’s worried about upsetting President Xi as the two struggle to hammer out a trade deal. More recently, the government overruled the CDC’s advice and put 14 Americans infected with the coronavirus on a plane back to the U.S. with others who were not infected. Trump was reportedly shocked and upset by the move, but the fact that he didn’t know about it (allegedly) is more evidence of how ill-equipped the administration is to handle an outbreak.
The dismantling of the national pandemic and bioterrorism response team was a John Bolton initiative, BTW. Mr. “I won’t tell you what I know unless there’s money in it” Bolton decided to streamline national security. Most of the team was dismissed; the remainder were folded into the group that tracks weapons of mass destruction.
Even if Congress provides additional funding, there remain fears that the Trump administration has already hamstrung it’s ability to address this emergency. As Foreign Policy’s Laurie Garrettwrote last month, the administration has “intentionally rendered itself incapable” of dealing with a problem of this scale. It wiped out its “entire pandemic response chain of command, including the White House management infrastructure,” Garrett wrote, and shut down the National Security Council’s global health security team, as well as its counterpart in the Department of Homeland Security. In addition to proposing funding cuts for national and global health programs, the administration has also kneecapped its public health teams by declining to replace officials who have left. While the president established a Coronavirus Task Force led by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar last month, “it’s not clear how it will function,” Garrett noted—essentially forcing the administration to “[resort] to improvisation” in its approach to the crisis.
I honestly do not understand why the Trump Administration would have gone all out to dismantle these functions of government. You do not want ad hoc committees responding to big, messy situations like a pandemic or a mass disaster, natural or otherwise. You need deep experience and institutional memory; otherwise, your group spends all its time re-inventing wheels. Think FEMA and Katrina; the professional staff had been pushed out and replaced by political hires who couldn’t find their own asses with both hands and a flashlight. But incompetent people who have never accomplished anything tangible often don’t appreciate these things.
There’s another Dem debate tonight. Expect a massive pile on of Bernie Sanders. If it gets too messy I may watch something else. Take heart; there will be only one more debate after this.
Although I have a couple of small quibbles about this article, IMO it is mostly spot on. Kendi argues that the “centrists” who dominate Democratic politics are incapable of recognizing their own failures and learning from their own mistakes.
Since McGovern, moderate Democrats have a losing record in presidential elections: six losses to the five wins by Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama (who ran a more progressive primary campaign than Hillary Clinton in 2008). But this history is lost in discussions of electability. It is as if moderate nominees are undefeated. It is as if the last time a Democrat lost was when the party nominated McGovern in 1972.
Moderate Democrats blame progressive candidates for losses, but they can’t seem to blame moderate candidates for their losses. Moderates can’t seem to reflect on the historical electability of their candidates, as they implore progressives to reflect on the historical electability of their candidates. Moderates recognize how progressive candidates alienate certain voters, but they can’t seem to recognize how moderate candidates alienate certain voters. Moderates implore progressives to give moderate candidates a chance, but they can’t seem to give progressive candidates a chance.
The one part of Kendi’s argument that I thought could use a closer look is Walter Mondale’s epic loss to Ronald Reagan in 1984. Mondale claimed even fewer electoral college votes than George McGovern in 1972. In centrist mythology, Mondale lost because he also was “too liberal.” But Kendi counts Mondale among the centrists. Who is right?
The one thing everyone remembers about Mondale’s campaign is that he promised to raise taxes, so if you consider “raising taxes” for the sake of raising taxes to be a bedrock liberal policy view, maybe. But it isn’t. Mondale wasn’t calling for a tax increase to pay for new progressive programs. He was, instead, a deficit hawk. Reagan’s tax cuts had blown a hole through revenues and jacked up the federal deficit. Deficit reduction was a centerpiece of Mondale’s campaign. “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did,” Mondale famously said in his nomination acceptance speech. (And, indeed, Reagan did raise taxes in his second term, as much as Republicans like to pretend he didn’t.)
Mondale’s was a centrist, even a conservative, position. Although he maintained traditionally liberal positions on civil rights, on many other issues he was part of the movement pushing the Democratic Party to the right at the time. One of Mondale’s advisers in the 1984 campaign was William Galston, whose thinking would be a foundation of the “New Democrats” movement that culiminated in Clintonism. “During the last two decades, most Democratic nominees have come to be seen as unacceptably liberal,” Galston said in 1989. Another was Robert Rubin, a long-time Goldman-Sachs executive who served as President Bill Clinton’s treasury secretary. Rubin is mostly known for wanting to deregulate the financuial sector, and he led the charge to repeal the Glass–Steagall Act.
Mondale and the Democrats … were blamed for prioritizing “special interests” (mainly racial minorities) over working-class white voters. (It’s a narrative that continues to plague Democrats.) In her study, Hershey cites a leading Democratic consultant at the time who said shortly after the election:
We have to realize that we’re getting out of touch with normal, regular people. We’re forgetting that the white middle-class is rejecting us. We’re being wagged by the tail of Jesse Jackson, of feminists or gay activists. The average voter is saying, “What about me?”
That election postmortem was echoed by political scientist Phil Klinkner in his 1994 book on election losses. Quoting a handful of different Democrats heavyweights, Klinkner finds the inability to court working-class white voters to be a constant source of intraparty frustration. “The perception is that we are the party that can’t say no, that caters to special interests and that does not have the interests of the middle class at heart,” said Dick Lodge, Tennessee’s Democratic chair. Harry McPherson, a former aide to Lyndon Johnson, complained to Klinkner: “Blacks own the Democratic Party…. White Protestant male Democrats are an endangered species.” One unnamed party leader was even more crass: “We ought to be just as concerned with the farmer on the tractor as that guy with an earring in his left ear.”
In other words, if you weren’t a working-class white man, you were a “special interest.” And I can’t say everyone in the Democratic Party is more enlightened today.
So, yes, Mondale was a centrist in most things. As much as I like him, Jimmy Carter’s economic policies were Reaganism lite. Mike Dukakis boldly admitted he was a member of the American Civil Liberties Union and proposed a universal health care bill, but he was otherwise pretty centrist. Al Gore promised to continue Bill Clinton’s neoliberal economic policies. John Kerry was thought to be serious on national security, making him “electable.” Don’t get me started on Hillary Clinton.
After Jimmy Carter’s win in 1976, which came about mostly because Gerald Ford flubbed a debate question, the Democrats’ big success stories were Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. I argue that Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign was successful because it evoked a resurgence of progressivism — yes we can — even though the details of his policy proposals as spelled out on his web site were not that different from Hillary Clinton’s. Even so, were it not for the 2008 financial crisis, John McCain might have won. And if Mitt Romney hadn’t been such an obvious plutocrat, he might have won in 2012. But all those “special interest” voters (young people, women, nonwhites) came out for Obama because they were terrified of Romney.
But, one more time: during the Obama Administration the Democratic Party lost a net total of 13 governorships and 816 state legislative seats, along with 12 and 64 seats in the U.S. Senate and House, respectively.
Bill Clinton’s is the centrists’ only unadulterated success story since 1972. Bill is a brilliant politician, and in spite of the investigations and scandals his administration was mostly successful. And it came to pass that the Clintons and people who came up through the ranks with the Clintons came to dominate the Democratic Party and its many sub-organizations, such as the DNC. Among party leaders and elites, the Clinton approach to politics is not to be questioned, even though it has been twenty years since Big Bill left the White House.
I have argued that Bill Clinton’s “New Democrat” centrist approach was a good strategy for 1992. “Movement conservatism” was still growing. Reaganites still dominated the national political conversation. I doubt a genuine progressive could have beaten Reagan’s former vice president, George H.W. Bush, in 1992. But it ain’t 1992 any more.
Now, finally, back to Ibram Kendi.
Moderate Democrats have been consistently inconsistent for decades. They have been rightfully critical of the prospect of a progressive presidential nominee: A progressive could alienate centrist voters, drive up voting rates among conservatives, and imperil the reelection chances of House Democrats in districts Trump won in 2016. Moderate Democrats have wrongfully refused to be self-critical of the prospect of a moderate presidential nominee: A moderate could alienate progressive voters into not voting or voting third party, drive down the voting rates of the party’s younger and nonwhite base, and fail to win back young or liberal white working-class swing voters who swung from Obama in 2012 to Donald Trump in 2016. To be a progressive in a party with a moderate is like being on a team with someone who sees all your deficiencies and does not see any of his own deficiencies, who always takes the credit when he wins, and never accepts blame when he loses.
The critic’s refusal to self-critique is the tragic enigma of the moderate Democrat: It could cost the Democratic Party the most consequential presidential election in recent memory. Moderate Democrats have lost presidential elections again and again, even as the doctrine of the electable moderate wins Democratic primaries again and again.
Clinton loyalists are still clinging to her popular vote win as vindication and blaming everybody but Clinton for her loss.
My fears are rooted in what the doctrine of the electable moderate conveniently misses: the crucial importance of the other swing voter in swinging elections in the 21st century. The traditional, white swing voter oscillates between voting Republican and Democrat—the be-all and end-all for moderate Democrats. Some Americans never vote. But I worry about the other swing voter, the one who swings between voting Democrat and not voting (or voting third party).
Despite all the talk of the 6 million Obama-to-Trump voters winning the election for Trump, more Obama voters in 2012 swung to not voting (4.4 million) or voting third party (2.3 million) in 2016. These other swing voters were more likely to be younger and people of color—and especially young black people. Today, they are likely to favor progressive candidates. They are likely to be turned off by moderate candidates, turned off by the records of Biden, former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Senator Amy Klobuchar on issues of race and gender.
If Democrats nominate a moderate who loses a decisive mass of young black voters in November, then I suspect most moderates will not blame the party’s choice for Trump’s reelection. I suspect they will blame those other swing voters who swung to not voting.
In the centrist Dem hive mind, someone who votes third party is giving away a vote that rightfully belonged to Centrist Democratic Candidate. Disloyalty! And choosing not to vote because neither candidate is acceptable somehow doesn’t count.
But yes, it’s absolutely maddening that we’re still being lectured about how the too-far-left candidate can’t win, when one hasn’t been tried for, well, nearly 50 years now. I think a majority of American voters have been hungry for a genuinely progressive, activist government for a long time. I think they were hungry for one in 2008. They were still hungry in 2016, and when Hillary Clinton promised to be the Keeper of the Status Quo, some people turned to the guy who was making big promises of big change — Donald Trump.
I’d be the first to say that of the original 800 or so candidates for the 2020 nomination, I wouldn’t have guessed Sanders would be a front runner. And of those people, I wouldn’t consider him the safest choice, although the remaining crew is looking a bit frayed. Right now it’s still possible someone else will catch fire and walk off with more primary votes than Sanders. But the crew at FiveThirtyEight is predicting Sanders will walk off with many more Super Tuesday wins than anyone else. So what if he’s the nominee, and the Dem elites and media figures have been screaming doom and failure? Wouldn’t they have been doing to the nominee what they (falsely, I say) claim Sanders did to Hillary Clinton in 2016?
Deal with it: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is not even a Democrat, is leading the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. And it looks possible that none of his rivals will be able to catch him. If you want to get rid of President Trump, prepare to get behind Sanders and do everything you can to make him president.
Well, yes. It’s perfectly okay to argue in favor of another candidate at this point. Please do. But predicting that a Sanders nomination would destroy civilization will make it really hard for the predictors to pivot and support him if he’s the nominee. And that’s a strong possibility right now.
We’ve still got a long way to go to the nomination, but until recently I honestly didn’t think Sanders would be the front runner in any part of this nomination process. But he is doing a great job so far.
For at least one day, in one state, the long-promised political revolution of Mr. Sanders came to vivid life, a multiracial coalition of immigrants, college students, Latina mothers, younger black voters, white liberals and even some moderates who embraced his idea of radical change and lifted him to victory in the Nevada caucuses on Saturday.
With 60 percent of precincts reporting, Sanders has 46 percent of the votes. Joe Biden is way, way behind with less than 20 percent of the vote, followed by Pete Buttigieg at 15 percent and Liz Warren at 10 percent. I am disappointed that the highly annoying Buttigieg had a better result than Warren, but at least Buttigieg — who is now going all out to attack Sanders — isn’t second. He’d be claiming victory if he were second. He may be declaring victory anyway; I am tuning him out.
We don’t have all the demographic breakdowns yet, but it appears Biden did better than Sanders with black voters. As of last night Biden claimed 39 percent of the African American vote in Nevada, while Sanders had 27 percent. Mayor Pete got a whopping 2 percent. Let’s see how you do in South Carolina, Pete.
The alarming thing about yesterday was that television coverage of the caucuses was dominated by Clinton surrogates and their media friends who were shrieking that Sanders must be stopped. On MSNBC, you’d think the assemblage of James Carville, Nicolle Wallace, Joy Reid, and Chris Matthews were discussing the Nazi occupation of France rather than the results of a bleeping state caucus. I had to turn it off. On CNN, Bill Clinton’s former press secretary Joe Lockhart declared that Mike Bloomberg had better take down Sanders immediately.
I say Democrats need to wake up and realize that they have to make a choice right now — they either get the clubs out and block Sanders from the nomination by any means, thereby alienating a whole lot of younger voters they desperately need now and in the future; or, they adjust their messaging to make it clear Sanders is not the enemy.
One more time: George McGovern didn’t lose in 1972 because he was a crazy leftie radical, because he wasn’t. He was ahead of his time a bit on some issues, such as amnesty for Vietnam draft dodgers, yes. But he lost primarily because Democrats abandoned him. Ed Kilgore:
The New Deal coalition he [McGovern] was alleged to have destroyed with his extremism was already kaput. The party abandoned his candidacy more than he abandoned the party. A second Nixon term seemed acceptable to a lot of Democrats, in part because he [Nixon] systematically tailored his policies and his political operation to expand his coalition.
Kilgore doesn’t mention race, but IMO race was at least part of the reason Democrats abandoned McGovern for Nixon. Nixon was running a racist campaign with code words about “law and order” and the evils of affirmative action. Labor unions, dominated then by old white men, preferred Nixon to McGovern, as did many white rank-and-file voters, for that reason.
It’s also the case that the McGovern general election campaign was a sloppy mess and made a lot of mistakes. My impression is that his team was left to fend for itself by the party elites, who considered him an interloper. Is history about to repeat itself? Former Clinton people certainly appear to be signalling they’d rather re-elect Trump than countenance a Bernie Sanders victory in November.
Ed Kilgore continues,
The residual question is whether Bernie Sanders will run a general election campaign anything like McGovern’s. Keep in mind that the South Dakotan’s primary campaign (run by future senator and presidential candidate Gary Hart) was then and later adjudged as quite good. But it’s as though the same people lost their minds once the nomination was in hand. It’s impossible to entirely separate cause from effect, but the abandonment of McGovern by Democrats was made easier by the perception that his campaign was bumbling and amateurish, and unsure about its own relationship to the party Establishment it had temporarily toppled.
I do think that if Sanders wins the nomination, his campaign needs to remember that it needs the DNC and its resources, like it or not. Sanders may well understand that, but I’m not sure all his supporters do.
At the same time, it may be that Dems are gnashing their teeth that the revolutionaries are taking over the party now and not in some other election. But the misdirections of the Democratic Party establishment are a big reason Trump was elected to begin with. The old elites need to understand that and allow change to take its natural course instead of blocking it. They are pretending its still 2008, or even 1992. It ain’t.
But Sanders hasn’t won the nomination yet. Right now, FiveThirtyEight has Biden slightly favored to win South Carolina, 23.4 to Sanders’s 21 percent. The Nevada win might give Sanders a bounce, of course. Next is Tom Steyer, of all people, at 15.7 percent, Bloomberg (not on the ballot, I don’t believe) is at 10 percent, and Buttigieg is at 9.5 percent. Warren trails behind, at 7 percent. A shame about Warren. Super Tuesday follows closely behind.
Former CIA Director John Brennan is very disturbed by a new report from The New York Times, which says last week, members of the House Intelligence Committee were warned by an aide to Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire that Russia is actively meddling in the 2020 campaign in order to get President Trump re-elected.
“We are now in a full-blown national security crisis,” Brennan said. “By trying to prevent the flow of intelligence to Congress, Trump is abetting a Russian covert operation to keep him in office for Moscow’s interests, not America’s.” Brennan served as CIA director from 2013 to 2017.
Trump is angry because our intelligence officials followed the law and informed members of both parties about what the intel indicated about new Russian efforts. Trump “berated” his acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, for allowing this heresy.
Trump was particularly angered by the presence at the briefing of Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif), who led the impeachment. Trump says Schiff and Democrats will “weaponize” these revelations.
And, of course, he didn’t just berate Maquire; he fired Maguire and is replacing Maguire with “U.S. Ambassador to Germany and Trump International Hotel ‘gold-level’ member Richard Grenell,” it says here. The point is that Trump is corrupting our national security to be sure nobody can find out what Russia might be up to in this year’s elections, or about anything else going on in the world that makes Trump look bad.
Mr. Grenell has no experience as an intelligence officer at any level, nor has he overseen a large government bureaucracy. He has served in government only as communications director for the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. during the George W. Bush administration, and since May 2018 as ambassador to Germany. (In the interim, he founded and ran a public affairs consultancy, advising and commenting on Fox News.)
The National Intellligence Director servies as the head of the entire U.S. intelligence community, among other things. Grenell won’t be able to do that job. And, also, this is a cabinet-level position that requjires Senate confirmation. Grenell will be the fourth person to hold the position in Trump’s three years as POTUS. Only one of those directors, Dan Coats, was confirmed. The rest have been “acting.”
So, wait. We will now have a career Internet troll running the intelligence community because the guy who was running it before held a meeting with the proper constitutional officers and warned them that the Volga Bagmen were at it again, which we all knew because none of us are stupid, and because Bob Mueller warned us about it months ago, and the president* went batshit crazy at the whole notion of it’s being discussed with people he doesn’t like?
Yep. Back to Greg Sargent:
The larger context here, spelled out by Adam Serwer, is the entrenchment of Trump’s GOP as a “regime party” committed to holding power through maximal manipulation of government. Trump’s Ukraine shakedown and his subsequent coverup are the most recent conspicuous examples — and his acquittal is hastening this process.
And the Republian Party is officially aiding and abetting this. That the chief threat is coming from Russia is especially damning. Poor Max Boot is apoplectic; the Republicans have become the party of Russia, he wrote. Better to let Russia subvert our democracy and our security than lose an election.
I didn’t expect that Mike Bloomberg would win America’s love with his charm, since he doesn’t have any, but I didn’t expect him to go down in flames quite as badly as he did last night. Perhaps I should have. The Bloomberg on the stage last night was pretty much the Bloomberg I remember as el alcalde de Nueva York. (If you didn’t watch the debate, Laura Quint provides a blow-by-blow account that’s worth reading.)
I think it’s stretching the truth a bit to say that Bloomberg was ever “popular” in New York. His approval ratings most of the time were better than his two predecessors, Rudy Giuliani and David Dinkins. But that’s setting a low bar. Giuliani in particular had just plain exhausted the city with his issues and his antics until the September 11 attacks allowed him to exit in a state of grace. But Bloomberg became mayor and stayed mayor for three terms mostly because he bought himself a whole lot of influence, and there were no strong election challengers to topple him. White voters, at least, liked him okay, stop and frisk notwithstanding. Police brutality toward racial minorities was hardly a new thing in New York City. But I never sensed a deep pool of affection for Mayor Bloomberg even in New Yorkers who thought he was a good enough mayor.
Still, one would have thought he would have known to smile or try to fake a personality. The small man people saw in Las Vegas was a cold, humorless mashup of Lex Luthor and early Scrooge McDuck. Even worse for Bloomberg, last night’s debate drew record viewership. He would have been better off avoiding the debates entirely. I wonder if he’ll show up for the next one.
I mean, Jesus H. Christ on a Peloton, Mike Bloomberg got elected mayor of New York. Twice. He even finagled the rules to get elected a third time. And, you know, being elected mayor of New York is a bigger deal than being elected mayor of, oh, I dunno, let’s pick a place. OK, South Bend, Indiana. So I have to ask people from New York this question: was he always this bad a candidate?
Mother Mary, the man looked like he’d rather be anywhere else than on that debate stage in Las Vegas, being eviscerated by these members of the peasant class. It began when Senator Professor Warren—who far and away had the best night up there, no matter how painful that is to certain members of the pundit class whose names rhyme with Fryin’ Billiams and Stare McLaskell—pounded him on the very first question of the debate by throwing back at Bloomberg some of his own intemperate remarks about women, at which point he looked, as Abraham Lincoln said of William Rosecrans after Chickamauga, like a duck that had been hit on the head.
Was he always that bad a candidate? I have to say, yes. It was kind of a fluke that he got elected the first time, but after that he owned enough of the town and its influencers that he didn’t have to work that hard to keep the job. But yesterday he had to step outside his influence bubble and expose himself to normal people, and he wasn’t prepared for it. It was stunning how much he wasn’t prepared for it.
What a catastrophe Wednesday night was for Mike Bloomberg. The New York plutocrat was kicked in the teeth by Elizabeth Warren in the first minutes — she denounced him as a Trump-like “arrogant billionaire” who called women “horse-faced lesbians” — and never made it back to his feet.
Bloomberg stood in mute fury as his $400 million campaign investment went up in smoke. His contempt for democracy and sense of entitlement surpass even Donald Trump, who at least likes crowds — Bloomberg’s joyless imperiousness makes Trump seem like Robin Williams.
Taibbi goes on to document the many political and media elites who had touted his candidacy and how much money they or their organizations had received from Bloomberg. Do read it the entire column.
The night belonged to Liz Warren more than anyone else. And it breaks my heart she isn’t the front runner right now. Over the past few months I have been told, many times, that Warren can’t win or that Warren couldn’t stand up to Trump in a one on one debate. I never bought into that belief, but it was hard to argue against it. I had nothing but my own gut feeling saying it was wrong.
But after last night, we know for a fact that Warren would be brilliant one on one against Trump. In fact, I believe she’d be the sharpest adversary against Trump we could nominate. As much as I like Bernie, I don’t see him eviscerating Trump as expertly as Warren gutted Bloomberg last night.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s breakout debate performance in Las Vegas on Wednesday night is drawing wide acclaim for her brutal dismantling of Mike Bloomberg, who appeared shaky and unprepared. By repeatedly savaging one “arrogant billionaire,” as Warren put it, she induced many to envision her woman-handling the other “arrogant billionaire,” the one tweeting maniacally from the White House.
Most people ranking winners and losers are giving strong marks to both Sanders and Warren. Most of the rest of the night was taken up by squabbling between Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg, who clearly can’t stand each other, with the occasional forgettable interjection from Joe Biden. It may be that the flirtation with Buttigieg and Klobuchar as the possible “moderate” saviors who might unify the party and take the nomination away from front-runner Sanders will cool off a bit now. I don’t see that happening. But a lot will depend on the results in Nevada and South Carolina.