Pundits are once again claiming that Trump's campaign is on the ropes. He has just over $1 million in the bank, compared to over $40 million for Clinton. Further, Clinton spent $26 million on advertising last month, while Trump spent virtually nothing.
For many this indicates that Trump is either running an unprofessional campaign, incapable of raising the money, or that the wealth Republican donors are simply refusing to back him In any other year, I might agree with this analysis. But this is not an ordinary year. Trump won the Republican nomination while raising and spending far less than his competitors.
Trump is the master of free media. He has absolutely no trouble getting his message to the public without spending a dime.
Paid advertising is much like prostitution. Anyone involved realizes there is a crass commercial motive behind it. As a result, most of the public tends to ignore it. Everyone knows that political operatives can spin facts in such a way as to make them sound far different than reality, without actually lying. This means that few people give ads any credibility.
As a result, we are far more likely to pay attention to actual news articles or video clips that discuss issues. When a candidate like Trump says something outrageous or off the wall, it gets far more coverage, and far more people see it. There is no need to advertise. If Trump is going to win this election, it will not be by playing Clinton's game of professional fundraising and paid political advertising. He is going to do it through free media. Therefore, I don't see the fundraising gap as an indicator of success this year, even though it is a big indicator in many previous elections.
Meanwhile, Trump has made at least one concession to convention. He has dumped his campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, for Paul Manafort. The Campaign originally hired Manafort to handle a possibly contested election, something Manafort has done many times before, going back to 1976 when he managed the convention for Ford against Reagan. But since the Convention now seems to be settled, Manafort's skills were not really needed there.
Lewandowski really has no experience leading a national campaign like this. Manafort is a more conventional choice for a campaign manager. But since Trump is not running a conventional campaign, it remains to be seen if this is a good idea. Manafort may end up a cross purposes with Trump if he tries to force Trump into a more conventional strategy. On the other hand, more conventional leadership may help to bring on board the Republican money and organization that should help the campaign.
Meanwhile, Clinton has been on an advertising spending binge. At first glance, spending money now when few people are paying attention to the campaign now that the primaries are over and before the convention, may seem like foolish timing. But this is a good time to begin defining your opponent. Conventional wisdom is that you need to define your opponent before he can define himself. Typically, this means trying to turn an opponent's strength into a weakness. We all remember how Bush went after Kerry's war record, or how Obama went after Romney's business practices. Those attacks began in this same general period. When the target refused to parry the attacks unsuccessfully, they followed him throughout the general election.
Clinton has begun challenging Trump's business acumen. She is focusing on the fact that he has gone through multiple bankruptcies, refused to pay people who did work for him, and shown a willingness to treat employees like dirt. Whether Trump can prevent any of this from sticking will be far more critical to his success than his ability to raise funds.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Friday, June 17, 2016
The Third Party Option
With the historically high negative numbers for both major party candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both need to worry about third party candidates.
Third party candidates rarely do well. For the most part they take away from major party candidates to act as a spoiler. The last major third party candidate was Ross Perot who ran against Clinton in 1992 and again in 1996. He received almost 20% of the vote in 1992, but only 8% in 1996. It was enough to let Clinton win with less than 50% of the popular vote. However, it is not clear that his entry would have changed the outcome as he drew votes from both major party candidates.
Green Party Candidate Ralph Nader often receives credit or blame for altering the outcome of the 2000 elections. Although he received less than 3% of the vote, the margin that year was so tight that he may have affected the outcome. People often point to Florida which was decided by less than 1000 votes and which decided the outcome of the election. This is an argument you will hear Clinton make often to discourage liberal voters from abandoning the party this year.
Third party candidates mostly run as spoilers with little chance of actual victory. To win any electoral votes, a candidate must in a majority in a State. Candidates with strong support among a minority of voters end up with zero electoral votes, such as Perot who got 20% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. The last third party candidate to win an electoral vote was George Wallace, who won a few southern States in 1968, when southern Democrats still were not ready to support a Republican, but also rejected the liberal integrationist candidacy of Hubert Humphrey.
The notion that third party candidates cannot win tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because people think they cannot win, most see a vote for them as a waste, meaning they pick the better of the two less desirable major party candidates. Therefore, third party candidates have a difficult time attracting votes, even if voters tend to favor them. They also tend to get far less media coverage, which is necessary to attract voters.
The last time a third party candidate won (indeed the only time) was when Abraham Lincoln beat three other major candidates in 1860. That turned the Republican party into a major party for the first time. Since then, the only third party ever to beat either major party was when former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt ran as a Progressive against Republican incumbent William Howard Taft. Roosevelt beat Taft in terms of both popular and electoral votes. But the two men divided support and handed the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
Current rules now make it nearly impossible for a third party candidate. First, unless a candidate gets at least 15% in the polls, he or she cannot participate in the debates. Since most people haven't heard of the candidates, let alone what the stand for, it becomes impossible to reach 15%. Further, candidates who have not reached certain thresholds in the prior election need to jump through more legal hoops to get their names on the ballot. Unless a candidate has strong organization in place more than a year before the elections to file the necessary legal paperwork they will not show up on the ballot in most States. Third party candidates also used to be at a disadvantage because they were ineligible for federal funding. But since the major party candidates also now reject such funding, that disadvantage is largely moot.
In 2016, it looks like there will be only two parties that are on the ballots in enough States to win a majority of electoral votes. The Libertarian Party may be able to get on ballots in all 50 States. The Green Party may get on most but not all States.
The Libertarian Party has nominated Gary Johnson for President and William Weld for Vice President. Both men are former Republican Governors from fairly liberal States (Johnson - New Mexico, Weld - Massachusetts). Currently, the Libertarians seem to be reaching out to Sanders supporters by strongly promoting a liberal social agenda, touting their support of abortion rights and gay rights, as well as marijuana legalization They also focus on their desire to reduce military spending and keep America out of foreign wars. Traditionally, Libertarians tend to take their small percentage of votes from Republicans, because of support for lower taxes, and reduced spending on anti-poverty programs. But this year may be more of a wash. If any third party has a chance of affecting the elections this year, it is the Libertarians. Johnson is currently polling at over 10%. If he can get that up to 15%, he might find himself in the debates, which would only increase his presence.
The Green Party's presumptive nominee is Jill Stein. Stein has never won elective office before, despite running for various offices, including President, in past elections. The Greens generally focus on the need for more environmental rules and regulations. Stein has also called for many of the same issues promoted by Bernie Sanders: higher minimum wage, single payer healthcare, and free college tuition. Stein also supports a much reduced military spending and much lower overall US involvement abroad. Although the Green's have failed to crack 1/2 of 1% in prior elections, they could be a home for many disaffected Sanders supporters this year, perhaps reaching results well into the single digits. Almost all Green votes would pull from Clinton's potential support.
With both major parties seemed to focus on playing up the negatives of their opponent, there is room for a third party candidate to win significant numbers this year. If third party numbers improve in the polls, it may at least force the two major party candidates to explain why voters should vote for them, rather than simply why we should not vote for their opponent.
Third party candidates rarely do well. For the most part they take away from major party candidates to act as a spoiler. The last major third party candidate was Ross Perot who ran against Clinton in 1992 and again in 1996. He received almost 20% of the vote in 1992, but only 8% in 1996. It was enough to let Clinton win with less than 50% of the popular vote. However, it is not clear that his entry would have changed the outcome as he drew votes from both major party candidates.
Green Party Candidate Ralph Nader often receives credit or blame for altering the outcome of the 2000 elections. Although he received less than 3% of the vote, the margin that year was so tight that he may have affected the outcome. People often point to Florida which was decided by less than 1000 votes and which decided the outcome of the election. This is an argument you will hear Clinton make often to discourage liberal voters from abandoning the party this year.
Third party candidates mostly run as spoilers with little chance of actual victory. To win any electoral votes, a candidate must in a majority in a State. Candidates with strong support among a minority of voters end up with zero electoral votes, such as Perot who got 20% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. The last third party candidate to win an electoral vote was George Wallace, who won a few southern States in 1968, when southern Democrats still were not ready to support a Republican, but also rejected the liberal integrationist candidacy of Hubert Humphrey.
The notion that third party candidates cannot win tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because people think they cannot win, most see a vote for them as a waste, meaning they pick the better of the two less desirable major party candidates. Therefore, third party candidates have a difficult time attracting votes, even if voters tend to favor them. They also tend to get far less media coverage, which is necessary to attract voters.
The last time a third party candidate won (indeed the only time) was when Abraham Lincoln beat three other major candidates in 1860. That turned the Republican party into a major party for the first time. Since then, the only third party ever to beat either major party was when former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt ran as a Progressive against Republican incumbent William Howard Taft. Roosevelt beat Taft in terms of both popular and electoral votes. But the two men divided support and handed the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
Current rules now make it nearly impossible for a third party candidate. First, unless a candidate gets at least 15% in the polls, he or she cannot participate in the debates. Since most people haven't heard of the candidates, let alone what the stand for, it becomes impossible to reach 15%. Further, candidates who have not reached certain thresholds in the prior election need to jump through more legal hoops to get their names on the ballot. Unless a candidate has strong organization in place more than a year before the elections to file the necessary legal paperwork they will not show up on the ballot in most States. Third party candidates also used to be at a disadvantage because they were ineligible for federal funding. But since the major party candidates also now reject such funding, that disadvantage is largely moot.
In 2016, it looks like there will be only two parties that are on the ballots in enough States to win a majority of electoral votes. The Libertarian Party may be able to get on ballots in all 50 States. The Green Party may get on most but not all States.
The Libertarian Party has nominated Gary Johnson for President and William Weld for Vice President. Both men are former Republican Governors from fairly liberal States (Johnson - New Mexico, Weld - Massachusetts). Currently, the Libertarians seem to be reaching out to Sanders supporters by strongly promoting a liberal social agenda, touting their support of abortion rights and gay rights, as well as marijuana legalization They also focus on their desire to reduce military spending and keep America out of foreign wars. Traditionally, Libertarians tend to take their small percentage of votes from Republicans, because of support for lower taxes, and reduced spending on anti-poverty programs. But this year may be more of a wash. If any third party has a chance of affecting the elections this year, it is the Libertarians. Johnson is currently polling at over 10%. If he can get that up to 15%, he might find himself in the debates, which would only increase his presence.
The Green Party's presumptive nominee is Jill Stein. Stein has never won elective office before, despite running for various offices, including President, in past elections. The Greens generally focus on the need for more environmental rules and regulations. Stein has also called for many of the same issues promoted by Bernie Sanders: higher minimum wage, single payer healthcare, and free college tuition. Stein also supports a much reduced military spending and much lower overall US involvement abroad. Although the Green's have failed to crack 1/2 of 1% in prior elections, they could be a home for many disaffected Sanders supporters this year, perhaps reaching results well into the single digits. Almost all Green votes would pull from Clinton's potential support.
With both major parties seemed to focus on playing up the negatives of their opponent, there is room for a third party candidate to win significant numbers this year. If third party numbers improve in the polls, it may at least force the two major party candidates to explain why voters should vote for them, rather than simply why we should not vote for their opponent.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
DC Ends the Primary Season
DC held the final primary of the season yesterday, just days after Pittsburgh won the Stanley cup in hockey. I mention that only because people pay even less attention to primaries this late in the season as they do to hockey in June.
Only the Democrats held a contest yesterday, since the DC Republicans picked their delegates months ago. Hillary won nearly 80% of the vote. This means little since she is already the presumptive nominee with a majority of delegates. Still, she picked up another 16 delegates, while Sanders won another 4.
DC also has 26 superdelegates, 22 of whom are top officers of the DNC.
Sanders continues his campaign, presumably seeking to get concessions at the Convention in exchange for his endorsement. The two candidates held a private meeting in DC last night for about 90 minutes. No word on what was discussed,
With that, you would think the primary season is officially over. But of course, nothing is ever really over. Next Saturday is the Iowa State Convention, where delegates are chosen to attend the national convention next month. The State Convention is the culmination of the process Iowa began back on Feb. 1 with its precinct caucuses. There will also be State conventions in Idaho, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Texas.
With the season now over, Clinton has 2219 pledged delegates to Sanders' 1832. With superdelegates who have promised support, Clinton has 2800 delegates to Sanders' 1881. Only 2383 is needed for a majority at the Convention.
Only the Democrats held a contest yesterday, since the DC Republicans picked their delegates months ago. Hillary won nearly 80% of the vote. This means little since she is already the presumptive nominee with a majority of delegates. Still, she picked up another 16 delegates, while Sanders won another 4.
DC also has 26 superdelegates, 22 of whom are top officers of the DNC.
Sanders continues his campaign, presumably seeking to get concessions at the Convention in exchange for his endorsement. The two candidates held a private meeting in DC last night for about 90 minutes. No word on what was discussed,
With that, you would think the primary season is officially over. But of course, nothing is ever really over. Next Saturday is the Iowa State Convention, where delegates are chosen to attend the national convention next month. The State Convention is the culmination of the process Iowa began back on Feb. 1 with its precinct caucuses. There will also be State conventions in Idaho, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Texas.
With the season now over, Clinton has 2219 pledged delegates to Sanders' 1832. With superdelegates who have promised support, Clinton has 2800 delegates to Sanders' 1881. Only 2383 is needed for a majority at the Convention.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Clinton Goes Over The Top
Hillary Clinton finally has a majority of delegates. There was no question that she would cross that threshold yesterday. When California, New Jersey, and several other States awarded hundreds of delegates. Some sources report that Clinton had the necessary majority before the day began with the support of several more unpledged superdelegates.
Clinton not only won the majority, she decisively defeated Sanders in the final major primary day. Clinton defeated Sanders by more than 10 points in California and 20 points in New Jersey. She also won victories in New Mexico and South Dakota. Sanders pulled out victories in North Dakota and a slim victory in North Dakota.
The current count shows Clinton with 2784 delegates, well above the 2383 needed for a majority at the convention. By contrast, Sanders has only 1877. Sanders claims he can still win by convincing the superdelegates, whose votes can change at any time, to support him rather than Clinton. There is no reason to believe that this will happen. Even only counting pledged delegates, Clinton has 2203 to Sanders' 1828. Clinton needs only 180 of the 712 superdelegates to support her. She currently has 589 pledged to her, compared to 59 for Sanders. The only way Sanders can win would be to convince more than 400 of the superdelegates pledged to Clinton to switch their votes to him.
There is no way that would happen. Even if something fundamentally drastic happened, like Clinton dropped dead or was indicted and dropped out of the race before the convention, the Party would likely find a new candidate to replace her, probably an establishment choice like Joe Biden. Democrats have pretty clearly rejected Sanders, who only just recently even registered as a Democrat and who has so many unexamined skeletons from his socialist past that he could never win a national election.
Even President Obama has now endorsed Clinton and is calling her the presumptive nominee. So why does Sanders continue to fight? Clearly he wants something out of this. It could be the VP slot (unlikely) or at least some say in who it is. He might want more party influence to change the rules for the 2020 elections. Given his age though, it is highly unlikely he would ever run again. He may simply want to change the party platform to promote his more liberal agenda. That may be possible since no one much cares about the platform anyway. A candidate is not bound to follow it.
There is still one more primary. DC holds its democratic primary on Tuesday, June 14. with only 20 more pledged delegates up for grabs. It will not change anything, but may be what Sanders is waiting for before conceding. If he does really go to the Convention and fight the hopeless fight, it will only harm the party and annoy the establishment Democrats even more.
Both primaries are now done.
The current count shows Clinton with 2784 delegates, well above the 2383 needed for a majority at the convention. By contrast, Sanders has only 1877. Sanders claims he can still win by convincing the superdelegates, whose votes can change at any time, to support him rather than Clinton. There is no reason to believe that this will happen. Even only counting pledged delegates, Clinton has 2203 to Sanders' 1828. Clinton needs only 180 of the 712 superdelegates to support her. She currently has 589 pledged to her, compared to 59 for Sanders. The only way Sanders can win would be to convince more than 400 of the superdelegates pledged to Clinton to switch their votes to him.
There is no way that would happen. Even if something fundamentally drastic happened, like Clinton dropped dead or was indicted and dropped out of the race before the convention, the Party would likely find a new candidate to replace her, probably an establishment choice like Joe Biden. Democrats have pretty clearly rejected Sanders, who only just recently even registered as a Democrat and who has so many unexamined skeletons from his socialist past that he could never win a national election.
Even President Obama has now endorsed Clinton and is calling her the presumptive nominee. So why does Sanders continue to fight? Clearly he wants something out of this. It could be the VP slot (unlikely) or at least some say in who it is. He might want more party influence to change the rules for the 2020 elections. Given his age though, it is highly unlikely he would ever run again. He may simply want to change the party platform to promote his more liberal agenda. That may be possible since no one much cares about the platform anyway. A candidate is not bound to follow it.
There is still one more primary. DC holds its democratic primary on Tuesday, June 14. with only 20 more pledged delegates up for grabs. It will not change anything, but may be what Sanders is waiting for before conceding. If he does really go to the Convention and fight the hopeless fight, it will only harm the party and annoy the establishment Democrats even more.
Both primaries are now done.
Monday, June 6, 2016
Clinton Wins Puerto Rico
Hillary Clinton finish the weekend with a victory in the Puerto Rico Primary. With 67 delegates available, both sides made the effort to campaign in the larges US territory. Clinton beat Sanders solidly by about 20 points. She won 36 delegates to 24 for Sanders. Clinton also already had six of the seven superdelegates pledged to her with one still remaining uncommitted. Only about 60,000 voters turned out to vote.
The victory in Puerto Rico puts Clinton a mere 27 delegates away from an absolute majority. With California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota poised to distribute 806 delegates on Tuesday, Sanders could win 95% of the vote in every State and still not prevent Clinton from reaching a majority.
Sanders is still pinning his hopes on the fact that Clinton's victory is dependent on superdelegates. Without counting superdelegates, who can change their vote an any time, Clinton has only 1809 delegates. Even if she wins 60% of the remaining delegates, she would still be short of an absolute majority counting only pledged delegates.
Sanders strategy seems to be to win California, which he may possibly do, but only by the most narrow of margins, that call on the superdelegates to change their votes since he is the most popular toward the end of the campaign.
This seems highly unrealistic for many reasons. First, Clinton leads sanders by any popular measure. She has won more pledged delegates, States, and total primary votes. Second, she is the establishment candidate. Third, these delegates already pledged to Clinton because they support her candidacy. Sanders is asking the Democratic Party establishment to change their committed votes to support a non-establishment candidate who primary voters have rejected by any reasonable measure. That will not happen.
Sanders' real card is the fact that he can still be a spoiler. If he screams and shouts that the Democratic Party is unfair, and perhaps even endorses a third party like the Green Party candidate, he could siphon off enough of his supporters to kill Clinton's chances against Trump. On the other hand, if he plays nice and tells his supporters that we must all come together to defeat Trump, that will go a long way toward uniting the party.
The only question is how high a price Sanders can exact for his support. He could demand to be on the ticket as VP (highly unlikely). He could insist Clinton choose a VP from a list of acceptable candidates. He could insist on changes to the Primary system for the next elections. He could demand the appointment of a new acceptable DNC Chair, or he could just demand some control over the Party platform, which everyone pretty much ignores anyway.
There is no real path to prevent Clinton from obtaining a majority of delegates. The only question now is whether Sanders can support her in a meaningful way.
The victory in Puerto Rico puts Clinton a mere 27 delegates away from an absolute majority. With California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota poised to distribute 806 delegates on Tuesday, Sanders could win 95% of the vote in every State and still not prevent Clinton from reaching a majority.
Sanders is still pinning his hopes on the fact that Clinton's victory is dependent on superdelegates. Without counting superdelegates, who can change their vote an any time, Clinton has only 1809 delegates. Even if she wins 60% of the remaining delegates, she would still be short of an absolute majority counting only pledged delegates.
Sanders strategy seems to be to win California, which he may possibly do, but only by the most narrow of margins, that call on the superdelegates to change their votes since he is the most popular toward the end of the campaign.
This seems highly unrealistic for many reasons. First, Clinton leads sanders by any popular measure. She has won more pledged delegates, States, and total primary votes. Second, she is the establishment candidate. Third, these delegates already pledged to Clinton because they support her candidacy. Sanders is asking the Democratic Party establishment to change their committed votes to support a non-establishment candidate who primary voters have rejected by any reasonable measure. That will not happen.
Sanders' real card is the fact that he can still be a spoiler. If he screams and shouts that the Democratic Party is unfair, and perhaps even endorses a third party like the Green Party candidate, he could siphon off enough of his supporters to kill Clinton's chances against Trump. On the other hand, if he plays nice and tells his supporters that we must all come together to defeat Trump, that will go a long way toward uniting the party.
The only question is how high a price Sanders can exact for his support. He could demand to be on the ticket as VP (highly unlikely). He could insist Clinton choose a VP from a list of acceptable candidates. He could insist on changes to the Primary system for the next elections. He could demand the appointment of a new acceptable DNC Chair, or he could just demand some control over the Party platform, which everyone pretty much ignores anyway.
There is no real path to prevent Clinton from obtaining a majority of delegates. The only question now is whether Sanders can support her in a meaningful way.
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Virgin Islands holds its Caucus
All eyes now are on June 7 when Hillary Clinton will almost certainly lock up the Democratic nomination. Everyone is watching whether she can win California. While this is important for optics, who actually wins California matters little. If either candidate wins by a few percentage points, it means a handful more delegates. Clinton will easily pick up the few dozen delegates she needs for a majority out of the more than 900 still at stake.
This weekend, however, has two other contests. Saturday was the Virgin Islands Caucus, which has 12 delegates: 7 pledged and 5 super. Clinton won the caucus overwhelmingly, with about 85% of the vote. That was enough to collect all 7 of the pledged delegates in this proportional contest. Some sources indicate Sanders may get 1 delegate. Clinton already had two superdelegates pledge support, with the remaining three still unpledged. The Virgin Islands, therefore, brings Clinton that much closer to victory.
The Virgin Islands is not that significant in the scheme of things. Voters in this territory cannot choose electors to select the President in the general election. It's population of just over 100,000 is smaller than any State. Just over 1500 people voted in the caucus, with just over 1300 supporting Clinton.
The Virgin Islands held a caucus, which have tended to favor Sanders, and was open, which has also tended to favor Sanders. Clinton's victory in a relatively small jurisdiction that has been largely ignored by both campaigns shows that her support among Democrats remains high. Sanders' claims that his is now the more popular candidate after Clinton ran up victories early in the season tends to ring hollow.
Today, Sunday, Puerto Rico holds its primary with 67 delegates at stake. If Clinton won all of them, she would be just over the majority threshold. More likely she will get achingly close to the number she needs, with the large contests on June 7 putting her over the top. A win in Puerto Rico will provide momentum going into June 7 though.
As I said, Clinton will win her majority of delegates on June 7 because there is no way Sanders can win over 95% of the popular vote on Tuesday. But if Sanders beats Clinton in California, the story will remain that Clinton is still weak, the party divided, and how the Democrats may not really get behind her to defeat Trump in November.
Clinton victories in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico will help her with the notion that she is the more popular candidate and that Democrats need to start rallying around her if they want to defeat Trump in November. Binding up wounds though, will likely have to take place with a VP pick and with the Convention. Much of that will be up to Sanders. He can either get behind the Clinton campaign in a major way, or can pout or demand too many concessions and leave the party divided.
This weekend, however, has two other contests. Saturday was the Virgin Islands Caucus, which has 12 delegates: 7 pledged and 5 super. Clinton won the caucus overwhelmingly, with about 85% of the vote. That was enough to collect all 7 of the pledged delegates in this proportional contest. Some sources indicate Sanders may get 1 delegate. Clinton already had two superdelegates pledge support, with the remaining three still unpledged. The Virgin Islands, therefore, brings Clinton that much closer to victory.
The Virgin Islands is not that significant in the scheme of things. Voters in this territory cannot choose electors to select the President in the general election. It's population of just over 100,000 is smaller than any State. Just over 1500 people voted in the caucus, with just over 1300 supporting Clinton.
The Virgin Islands held a caucus, which have tended to favor Sanders, and was open, which has also tended to favor Sanders. Clinton's victory in a relatively small jurisdiction that has been largely ignored by both campaigns shows that her support among Democrats remains high. Sanders' claims that his is now the more popular candidate after Clinton ran up victories early in the season tends to ring hollow.
Today, Sunday, Puerto Rico holds its primary with 67 delegates at stake. If Clinton won all of them, she would be just over the majority threshold. More likely she will get achingly close to the number she needs, with the large contests on June 7 putting her over the top. A win in Puerto Rico will provide momentum going into June 7 though.
As I said, Clinton will win her majority of delegates on June 7 because there is no way Sanders can win over 95% of the popular vote on Tuesday. But if Sanders beats Clinton in California, the story will remain that Clinton is still weak, the party divided, and how the Democrats may not really get behind her to defeat Trump in November.
Clinton victories in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico will help her with the notion that she is the more popular candidate and that Democrats need to start rallying around her if they want to defeat Trump in November. Binding up wounds though, will likely have to take place with a VP pick and with the Convention. Much of that will be up to Sanders. He can either get behind the Clinton campaign in a major way, or can pout or demand too many concessions and leave the party divided.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Is Trump the next Reagan?
I am increasingly accepting the idea that Donald Trump could be our next President. The numbers indicate that he should be defeated terribly based on his ratings with women and Hispanics. That may change though.
Trump also had high negatives among Republicans a year ago. He has largely won them over. A year ago, Trump held extremely high negatives among most Republicans and had support in the 20%-30% range. Today, 87% of Republicans say they will support Trump. Part of this is the Republican notion that they must "get in line" behind the nominee and be a good soldier. Part of this is the almost irrational fear some Republicans seen to have of a Hillary Clinton Presidency. Whatever the motive, Trump has unified the party far more than I ever thought he could.
Unifying Republicans is one thing though. Winning the majority support of the country is quite another. Many Americans not only see Trump as wrong headed. They see him as dangerous, out of touch with reality, and without the background, experience, or temperament to run the country.
Many people said the same thing about Ronald Reagan in 1979-80. Although Reagan had been Governor of California, he was primary known as an actor with little political experience. His nearly irrational hatred of Communism might have led him to start a nuclear war. His almost insanely unrealistic economic views, which a fellow Republican called "voodoo economics" could have possibly destroyed the economy. Many Americans considered him extremely dangerous.
By the numbers, many would argue that Reagan's critics were right. His tripling of the national debt was seen as the height of fiscal irresponsibility, even if it did provide short term economic boosts. His deregulation lead directly to the S&L crisis of the 1990's and other problems. His decisions to provide weaponry to the Taliban in Afghanistan, to support Saddam Hussein with military aid, to sell military equipment to Iran, and to retreat in the face of a terrorist attack in Beirut all created problems for his successors. His plan to lower taxes for the wealthiest while increasing payroll taxes for working people only increased the income disparity that remains an even larger problem today.
Despite all this, many people still consider the Reagan presidency a great success. The economy was much better during his term in office than during the ones immediately prior and subsequent. His actions are largely credited for contributing to the fall of the Soviet Union. His penchant for deregulation was seen as a factor in unleashing the economic power of the United States. Beyond that Reagan's speeches and actions made Americans feel proud and confident.
Many would argue that Trump is no Reagan. His positions are erratic, he has no good grasp on the issues, and many of his speeches are divisive, if not outright racist. The same sorts of things though were said about Reagan. We look back at his presidency with the lens of history. He did not start WW III. His economic polices are generally now deemed a success (though there is still debate about whether Reagan's policies deserve all the credit for the economic improvements). But at the time, in the 1980's, Reagan's critics strongly criticized his intelligence, knowledge of issues, grasp on reality, personal prejudices, and dangerous militarism Many similar charges are now levied at Trump.
This does not mean that a President Trump would have the same perceived success of the Reagan Presidency. It simply means that the establishment criticism do not necessarily spell doom. Reagan had a hard time winning over establishment Republicans, but did so. He had an even harder time winning over the public, bud did that too, winning two elections with overwhelming victories.
Reagan's gift as a politician was his ability to win over supporters without getting into the weeds on policy questions. Most voters looked at him as someone who inspired confidence and had an abstract vision for a great America. Trump seems to have a similar gift. He is able to inspire voters to have confidence in him as a leader in the abstract. He is able to draw voters to him without them having a clear idea of what policies he might implement. In short, they trust him as a leader, regardless of what policies he might implement.
This is not to say Trump would necessarily have the same level of success as Reagan. Wild cards are wild for a reason. Things may fall into place for him and work out well. But they could just as easily fall apart and his patina of confident leadership will be wiped away. Think George W. Bush and Iraq.
Even if Trump can be compared to Reagan in terms of voter support, he faces a growing demographic problem. In 1984, when Reagan won overwhelming reelection, he received only 9% of the Black vote, and 34% of the Hispanic vote. Those anti-Reagan votes were not enough to overcome his overwhelming support with white voters, even in States like Florida and California or the entire Southwest. Today the lack of minority support would be a much larger issue as the number of minority voters, particularly Hispanics, has grown considerably. It is hard to imagine winning a great many states without significant Hispanic support at least in the mid-40s. Black voters are also voting in much larger numbers than in the 1980's. Reagan also won 58% of the women's vote, compared with 62% of men. Trump has strong negatives with women based on many of his comments. His numbers with women are only around 33%. He would need to get those number up at least 10 points before it would not be fatal to an election win, even if he can get a strong majority of male support.
Demographic issues aside, it does seem unlikely based on historical contests that an establishment technocrat with little charisma could beat a flamboyant outsider who gets a sizable minority of the country so excited. At this point, voters seem to be looking at Trump to see if they can live with him. If they can be convinced that he won't completely destroy the country they will give him their vote rather than the much hated opponent whom they also dislike. Against that, Trump could convince enough Hillary haters to give him the victory.
Please don't think by my writing this that I will ever support Trump. I absolutely will not. But then, I did not support Reagan either.
Friday, May 27, 2016
Donald Trump Reaches a Majority (Sort Of)
Donald Trump now has 1238 delegates supporting him at the Convention, one more than the 1237 needed for an absolute majority.
Although Trump was not expected to reach this number until June 7 when the next Republican primary elections are held, he was able to get over the top a little early. Trump still does not have enough pledged delegates for a majority, but several States are sending unpledged delegates. Trump was able to get enough of those unpledged delegates to announce publicly that they would vote for Trump at the Convention to put him over the top.
Theoretically, these delegates are not bound by their promise and could change their minds at any time. The reality though is that Trump will receive enough pledged delegates on June 7 when California, New Jersey, and a few other States hold their primary elections. Getting these delegates to announce early just created a media story a few weeks early that continues the message that Trump is the winner.
Although Trump was not expected to reach this number until June 7 when the next Republican primary elections are held, he was able to get over the top a little early. Trump still does not have enough pledged delegates for a majority, but several States are sending unpledged delegates. Trump was able to get enough of those unpledged delegates to announce publicly that they would vote for Trump at the Convention to put him over the top.
Theoretically, these delegates are not bound by their promise and could change their minds at any time. The reality though is that Trump will receive enough pledged delegates on June 7 when California, New Jersey, and a few other States hold their primary elections. Getting these delegates to announce early just created a media story a few weeks early that continues the message that Trump is the winner.
Thursday, May 19, 2016
The VP Game - Democrat Edition
Hillary Clinton's choice of a Vice Presidential running mate has the ability to capture the news cycle for a day or two, but probably little else. Traditionally, VP choices can only harm a ticket when an overlooked skeleton in the closet comes out about the candidate, or the candidate just withers away in the spotlight or start staying just incredibly stupid things. Traditionally, those have been Republican problems. Democratic VP choices typically know how to shut up, stand there and smile.
This is the first major decision a potential president must make, so it always raises interest as a test of the candidate's judgment. Also, since both of our candidates are already well beyond normal retirement age, there is no guarantee they will live through their term of office. Let's take a look at who may be under consideration:
Former Opponents
No, Hillary is not going to tap Bernie Sanders to run with her. Yet, it would help unite the progressive left behind her candidacy, but Sanders is not one to shut up and smile. I don't think he would have much interest in standing there silently for four years when he could be screaming and shouting about issues it he Senate. Even if Clinton wanted him, Sanders is not one to do it out of party loyalty, since he really only joined the Democratic Party to run for President. He has been an independent for virtually all of his political career. Sanders also has way too much baggage. His support for increased taxes on everyone, for support of various Communist governments in the 1980's, and his outspoken support for a range of unpopular leftist issues would be too much of a feast for the Republican political advertisers. Clinton would never want that distraction.
Remember way back that the beginning of the race when Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb, and Lawrence Lessig were running? Neither does anyone else. None of them ever caught on with anyone and are not likely to get much consideration for the VP slot.
Senators:
Clinton is less likely to pick a Washington insider since she has been an insider herself for the last quarter century. The Senate is the most common place for any candidate to pick a running mate. In a year when voters seem particularly anti-Washington, this would seem like a bad choice on a political level. If she does pick someone from Washington, it will likely be someone young who has only been in town for less than a decade.
Sherrod Brown, Senator from Ohio, has gotten a fair amount of press speculation for VP. Brown has a relatively solid moderate record for a Democrat. He tends to favor protectionism and has supported legislation to reign in Wall Street. That could help him with Sanders supporters, although it may play as a contrast with Clinton's record. No Republican has ever won the White House without Ohio, so anything Clinton can do to help her chances there probably makes sense.
Tim Kaine, Senator from Virginia, and a former Governor, is not much of an insider, but does come from what is now an important swing State. He would be a relatively bland and safe choice. His selection would not excite the progressive left, but would not scare off moderates or anti-Trump Republicans either.
Mark Warner, the other Senator from Virginia, and also a former Governor. At age 60, he does not have the youth of many others under consideration, but has won multiple elections in a relatively conservative swing state. He was seen as a possible Presidential candidate in 2008, although he declined. He may have done so out of deference to Clinton's run, which would work in his favor now, or because he has skeletons, which would still be an issue for VP. Assuming no skeletons, he is again a relatively safe moderate choice.
Cory Booker, Senator from New Jersey, probably has not been in Washington long enough to be considered a Washington insider. He tends to be traditionally liberal and from a solid Democrat State. However, many on the left see him as a Wall Street sell-out. His selection would not help Clinton with the Sanders supporters. His liberal policies probably would not help with moderates or anti-Trump Republicans.
Martin Heinrich, Senator from New Mexico, came to the House riding the Obama wave in 2008. He won his Senate seat in 2012. He holds a fairly traditional liberal Democrat position on most issues, but tries to reach out to Republicans where possible. He is young, reasonably bright and looks good in a suit. That's probably enough for consideration.
Evan Bayh, Senator from the very Republican State of Indiana, an impressive feat for any Democrat. He is from the conservative wing of the Democratic party. His father, Birch Bayh, was also a Senator. Bayh was seen as a Democrat who could help make inroads into Republican territory, but is considered an intellectual lightweight and without much going for him. He also has some controversies involving business deals. Clinton has enough of her own business deal controversies without adding more.
Bob Casey, Senator from Pennsylvania, would be an interesting choice. He is relatively moderate and from a Democratic leaning State that always seems to be in play. The fact that he is a pro-life Democrat might turn off some, but probably not a deciding factor for voters considering between Trump and Clinton. Abortion aside, Casey seems to follow the Party line on most issues. His father was once Governor of Pennsylvania, making him appear part of the long time political class that voters seem to dislike this year.
Al Franken, Senator from Minnesota is also someone who has been in Washington for a while, but is probably not considered part of the establishment. Franken has been a solidly liberal vote for the Democrats in the Senate. But what probably puts him under consideration is his wit and speaking ability. Franken became known to the world as a Saturday Night Live Comedian back in the 1980's. He wrote several satirical books attacking the far right before running for office. Since elected, Franken has avoided being funny in order to be taken seriously as a Senator. But he clearly has a quick wit, a liberal mind, and can think on his feet. This could help prevent Trump from sucking all the media interest and attention from an overly boring Democratic ticket.
Elizabeth Warren, Senator from Massachusetts, is part of the Washington scene, but is still seen as a progressive outsider because of her Wall Street opposition. Her selection for the ticket would make Sanders supporters happy, but not much of anyone else. Warren holds very liberal positions on most issues, which may not play well out of Massachusetts. There is also little evidence that she would want to hold her tongue and stop criticizing Clinton's moves to the right. Having two women on the ticket may also be a little much for some voters.
While on the subject of female Senators, There are a number of others who may get some consideration: Claire McCaskill, Jean Shaheen, and Amy Klobuchar. A two woman ticket seems like an unlikely decision for Clinton, who would want to remain as centrist as possible after the nomination. Also, with the Senate trying to win back a majority, putting any of these States in play for a new Senator would be seen as a problem. I don't see any of them as a likely choice.
Governors:
Governors are often seen as chief executives only on a smaller scale. The tend to lack foreign policy experience, but are seen as leaders with political savvy. In the last 50 years, five of eight Presidents have been Governors (Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43). Two others, Ford and Bush 41, moved up from Vice President. Only one, Obama, had only legislative experience. Governors, however, rarely get chosen as VP. I can think of only one who ran on a ticket in the last 50 years: Spiro Agnew, and that did not go well.
John Hickenlooper, Governor of Colorado has been discussed. The state is probably leaning Democrat anyway and is not that large. Hickenlooper lacks any foreign policy experience. But since he is balancing out a ticket with a former Secretary of State, that should not be an issue. The head of the State that is known as the leader in pot legalization would bring that issue to the national scene. It is probably a winning issue for Democrats, so that may be a positive factor.
Andrew Cuomo Governor of New York is probably an unlikely pick. Cuomo comes from a political family (his father was Governor and also discussed as a Presidential Candidate). Polls show voters want to see some different names from the ones they have always seen. Cuomo is also from the same State as Clinton, usually seen as a problem. Electors cannot vote for a President and Vice President who are both from their home state. This means there could be an issue if the New York electors were needed to elect the whole ticket. This could create a problem that would prevent them from voting for the Vice President.
One other woman who could get some consideration is Gina Raimondo, who was elected Governor of Rhode Island in 2014. She has little record on national issues, being much more focused on State and local issues. At age 45, she is a generation younger than Clinton, who has had trouble with attracting the votes of younger women. Even though Raimondo would make it a two woman ticket, the diversity of age may be an attraction.
Out of the Box Picks
Xavier Becerra, a twenty year veteran of the US Congress, from California and House Democratic Caucus Chairman makes Becerra an insider. He has campaigned heavily for Clinton in the primaries. He does not have much of a national reputation. Being Hispanic could be a plus for Clinton. The fact that he is a practiced politician and known campaigner also work in his favor. He has taken relatively liberal positions, even for a Democrat, but is not seen as a radical.
Brian Schweitzer, former Governor of Montana, is pretty conservative for a Democrat. His selection would be a way of appealing to centrists. He can be rather outspoken and is prone to political stunts. He would be an interesting choice but is probably a real long shot.
Charlie Crist, former Republican Governor of Florida, turned Democrat. Crist is from a swing state, but has not been particularly popular there since he changed parties. He could start a conversation about how the Republicans have gone too far off the mainstream. That could have appeal for independents and anti-Trump Republicans. Democrats, however, may pause at having a former Republican that close to running the Democratic Party.
Deval Patrick was Asst. Attorney General during Bill Clinton's administration. He left to go into private practice before becoming the Governor of Massachusetts nearly a decade later. As with any Massachusetts Democrat, he has taken quite liberal positions on many issues. Being an African American may help to keep those voters voting with some enthusiasm, even if not the levels they showed for President Obama. Patrick also worked for Bain Capital, Mitt Romney's company. That would certainly raise questions among the anti-Wall Street crowd. Patrick as VP would not be a pivot to the center as Clinton is expected to make, and would not particularly grab the enthusiasm of Sanders supporters.
Joe Manchin, Senator and former Governor of West Virginia is nominally a Democrat but seems to support the Republicans on a great many issues, including guns and the environment. He refused to endorse President Obama's reelection in 2012 due to policy differences. Manchin comes from a conservative State that Clinton likely would still not win. Manchin would probably be to the right of Trump on many issues and is outspoken enough that he might start more political fires than he extinguishes. Manchin would also alienate the progressive left. So while some pundits have put his name on long lists of VP possibilities, he seems a real long shot.
Joe Biden, Vice President now and continuing? While we are on the subject of real long shots, Joe Biden could continue in the position of VP for another four or eight years. He is experienced and has not been overly criticized. There is no term limit on VP as there is for the President. Biden would tie Clinton more closely to the Obama Administration. I don't know if that is necessarily a bad thing for voters, but she probably wants to be seen as her own person. At 72, Biden is also older than all the other candidates and is probably ready for retirement.
Wesley Clark, retired General who has been an active Democrat since retirement, could be an interesting choice. It could help with voters who think Democrats are weak militarily, something that has long concerned Clinton. He comes with little political baggage. At 71, however, Clark is likely going to have his age be an issue, as is his complete lack of political experience.
Conclusion:
It is hard to guess where Clinton is headed with her choice, given the lack of public discussion on the issue. I would say that Sherrod Brown may be the favorite in this crowded field, but probably would not give him better than five to one odds. Julian Castro also has received a fair amount of attention. Tim Kaine also makes my list of likely short-listers.
This is the first major decision a potential president must make, so it always raises interest as a test of the candidate's judgment. Also, since both of our candidates are already well beyond normal retirement age, there is no guarantee they will live through their term of office. Let's take a look at who may be under consideration:
Former Opponents
No, Hillary is not going to tap Bernie Sanders to run with her. Yet, it would help unite the progressive left behind her candidacy, but Sanders is not one to shut up and smile. I don't think he would have much interest in standing there silently for four years when he could be screaming and shouting about issues it he Senate. Even if Clinton wanted him, Sanders is not one to do it out of party loyalty, since he really only joined the Democratic Party to run for President. He has been an independent for virtually all of his political career. Sanders also has way too much baggage. His support for increased taxes on everyone, for support of various Communist governments in the 1980's, and his outspoken support for a range of unpopular leftist issues would be too much of a feast for the Republican political advertisers. Clinton would never want that distraction.
Remember way back that the beginning of the race when Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb, and Lawrence Lessig were running? Neither does anyone else. None of them ever caught on with anyone and are not likely to get much consideration for the VP slot.
Senators:
Clinton is less likely to pick a Washington insider since she has been an insider herself for the last quarter century. The Senate is the most common place for any candidate to pick a running mate. In a year when voters seem particularly anti-Washington, this would seem like a bad choice on a political level. If she does pick someone from Washington, it will likely be someone young who has only been in town for less than a decade.
Sherrod Brown, Senator from Ohio, has gotten a fair amount of press speculation for VP. Brown has a relatively solid moderate record for a Democrat. He tends to favor protectionism and has supported legislation to reign in Wall Street. That could help him with Sanders supporters, although it may play as a contrast with Clinton's record. No Republican has ever won the White House without Ohio, so anything Clinton can do to help her chances there probably makes sense.
Tim Kaine, Senator from Virginia, and a former Governor, is not much of an insider, but does come from what is now an important swing State. He would be a relatively bland and safe choice. His selection would not excite the progressive left, but would not scare off moderates or anti-Trump Republicans either.
Mark Warner, the other Senator from Virginia, and also a former Governor. At age 60, he does not have the youth of many others under consideration, but has won multiple elections in a relatively conservative swing state. He was seen as a possible Presidential candidate in 2008, although he declined. He may have done so out of deference to Clinton's run, which would work in his favor now, or because he has skeletons, which would still be an issue for VP. Assuming no skeletons, he is again a relatively safe moderate choice.
Cory Booker, Senator from New Jersey, probably has not been in Washington long enough to be considered a Washington insider. He tends to be traditionally liberal and from a solid Democrat State. However, many on the left see him as a Wall Street sell-out. His selection would not help Clinton with the Sanders supporters. His liberal policies probably would not help with moderates or anti-Trump Republicans.
Martin Heinrich, Senator from New Mexico, came to the House riding the Obama wave in 2008. He won his Senate seat in 2012. He holds a fairly traditional liberal Democrat position on most issues, but tries to reach out to Republicans where possible. He is young, reasonably bright and looks good in a suit. That's probably enough for consideration.
Evan Bayh, Senator from the very Republican State of Indiana, an impressive feat for any Democrat. He is from the conservative wing of the Democratic party. His father, Birch Bayh, was also a Senator. Bayh was seen as a Democrat who could help make inroads into Republican territory, but is considered an intellectual lightweight and without much going for him. He also has some controversies involving business deals. Clinton has enough of her own business deal controversies without adding more.
Bob Casey, Senator from Pennsylvania, would be an interesting choice. He is relatively moderate and from a Democratic leaning State that always seems to be in play. The fact that he is a pro-life Democrat might turn off some, but probably not a deciding factor for voters considering between Trump and Clinton. Abortion aside, Casey seems to follow the Party line on most issues. His father was once Governor of Pennsylvania, making him appear part of the long time political class that voters seem to dislike this year.
Elizabeth Warren, Senator from Massachusetts, is part of the Washington scene, but is still seen as a progressive outsider because of her Wall Street opposition. Her selection for the ticket would make Sanders supporters happy, but not much of anyone else. Warren holds very liberal positions on most issues, which may not play well out of Massachusetts. There is also little evidence that she would want to hold her tongue and stop criticizing Clinton's moves to the right. Having two women on the ticket may also be a little much for some voters.
While on the subject of female Senators, There are a number of others who may get some consideration: Claire McCaskill, Jean Shaheen, and Amy Klobuchar. A two woman ticket seems like an unlikely decision for Clinton, who would want to remain as centrist as possible after the nomination. Also, with the Senate trying to win back a majority, putting any of these States in play for a new Senator would be seen as a problem. I don't see any of them as a likely choice.
Cabinet Members
It would be highly unusual to pick a cabinet secretary with little electoral experience. These folks tend to be untested in the public limelight. They also tend to be more focused on policy than winning elections. Often, they are involved in policy decisions that can create political firestorms. They also tend to associate the campaign with the prior administration. Nevertheless, several, Obama secretaries seem to be under consideration this year.
Julian Castro, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, was put forward as a possible choice last year. He is young, of Mexican descent, and has been seen as a rising star in the Party. Still, he has little electoral experience and is tied to the Obama Administration Castro was a favorite when Clinton thought she might be facing a Hispanic Cruz or Rubio opponent. But after Republicans picked a regular white guy as usual, the need for a Hispanic on the ticket seems less important.
Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture and former Governor of Iowa, briefly ran for President in 2008 before dropping out and endorsing Clinton. He tends to favor an aggressive foreign policy and did not seem to support the President's decision to leave Iraq. Secretary of Agriculture usually leaves one out of the controversial issues. He is seen as being too cozy with the agribusiness industries for many of on the left. The leap from Secretary of Agriculture to Vice President seems like a long one to me.
Tom Perez, Secretary of Labor, former Asst. Attorney General, has spent most of the Obama Administration on civil rights issues. I figured I would throw him in as long as we are looking at Obama cabinet members, but he seems unlikely as well. His involvement in investigations of controversial civil rights cases like Trayvon Martin, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and voter ID cases may make him seem like too much of a Democratic partisan. He is Hispanic, which could be seen as a plus. But lack of any real elected office makes him look more like an Washington Bureaucrat, out of touch with real America.
Governors are often seen as chief executives only on a smaller scale. The tend to lack foreign policy experience, but are seen as leaders with political savvy. In the last 50 years, five of eight Presidents have been Governors (Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43). Two others, Ford and Bush 41, moved up from Vice President. Only one, Obama, had only legislative experience. Governors, however, rarely get chosen as VP. I can think of only one who ran on a ticket in the last 50 years: Spiro Agnew, and that did not go well.
John Hickenlooper, Governor of Colorado has been discussed. The state is probably leaning Democrat anyway and is not that large. Hickenlooper lacks any foreign policy experience. But since he is balancing out a ticket with a former Secretary of State, that should not be an issue. The head of the State that is known as the leader in pot legalization would bring that issue to the national scene. It is probably a winning issue for Democrats, so that may be a positive factor.
Andrew Cuomo Governor of New York is probably an unlikely pick. Cuomo comes from a political family (his father was Governor and also discussed as a Presidential Candidate). Polls show voters want to see some different names from the ones they have always seen. Cuomo is also from the same State as Clinton, usually seen as a problem. Electors cannot vote for a President and Vice President who are both from their home state. This means there could be an issue if the New York electors were needed to elect the whole ticket. This could create a problem that would prevent them from voting for the Vice President.
One other woman who could get some consideration is Gina Raimondo, who was elected Governor of Rhode Island in 2014. She has little record on national issues, being much more focused on State and local issues. At age 45, she is a generation younger than Clinton, who has had trouble with attracting the votes of younger women. Even though Raimondo would make it a two woman ticket, the diversity of age may be an attraction.
Out of the Box Picks
Xavier Becerra, a twenty year veteran of the US Congress, from California and House Democratic Caucus Chairman makes Becerra an insider. He has campaigned heavily for Clinton in the primaries. He does not have much of a national reputation. Being Hispanic could be a plus for Clinton. The fact that he is a practiced politician and known campaigner also work in his favor. He has taken relatively liberal positions, even for a Democrat, but is not seen as a radical.
Charlie Crist, former Republican Governor of Florida, turned Democrat. Crist is from a swing state, but has not been particularly popular there since he changed parties. He could start a conversation about how the Republicans have gone too far off the mainstream. That could have appeal for independents and anti-Trump Republicans. Democrats, however, may pause at having a former Republican that close to running the Democratic Party.
Deval Patrick was Asst. Attorney General during Bill Clinton's administration. He left to go into private practice before becoming the Governor of Massachusetts nearly a decade later. As with any Massachusetts Democrat, he has taken quite liberal positions on many issues. Being an African American may help to keep those voters voting with some enthusiasm, even if not the levels they showed for President Obama. Patrick also worked for Bain Capital, Mitt Romney's company. That would certainly raise questions among the anti-Wall Street crowd. Patrick as VP would not be a pivot to the center as Clinton is expected to make, and would not particularly grab the enthusiasm of Sanders supporters.
Joe Manchin, Senator and former Governor of West Virginia is nominally a Democrat but seems to support the Republicans on a great many issues, including guns and the environment. He refused to endorse President Obama's reelection in 2012 due to policy differences. Manchin comes from a conservative State that Clinton likely would still not win. Manchin would probably be to the right of Trump on many issues and is outspoken enough that he might start more political fires than he extinguishes. Manchin would also alienate the progressive left. So while some pundits have put his name on long lists of VP possibilities, he seems a real long shot.
Joe Biden, Vice President now and continuing? While we are on the subject of real long shots, Joe Biden could continue in the position of VP for another four or eight years. He is experienced and has not been overly criticized. There is no term limit on VP as there is for the President. Biden would tie Clinton more closely to the Obama Administration. I don't know if that is necessarily a bad thing for voters, but she probably wants to be seen as her own person. At 72, Biden is also older than all the other candidates and is probably ready for retirement.
Wesley Clark, retired General who has been an active Democrat since retirement, could be an interesting choice. It could help with voters who think Democrats are weak militarily, something that has long concerned Clinton. He comes with little political baggage. At 71, however, Clark is likely going to have his age be an issue, as is his complete lack of political experience.
Conclusion:
It is hard to guess where Clinton is headed with her choice, given the lack of public discussion on the issue. I would say that Sherrod Brown may be the favorite in this crowded field, but probably would not give him better than five to one odds. Julian Castro also has received a fair amount of attention. Tim Kaine also makes my list of likely short-listers.
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Oregon and Kentucky
Sanders had another night of net gains, while Clinton still moved closer to her inevitable victory in delegates. Sanders defeated Clinton in Oregon by about 10 points saw a virtual tie in Kentucky. The delegates end up being split almost evenly.
In Oregon, Sanders will collect an estimated 35 pledged delegates to Clinton's 26, for a net gain of 9 pledged delegates. Of the State's 13 super delegates, 6 have committed to Clinton, 1 to Sanders, and 6 uncommitted. As a result, Sanders leaves Oregon with 4 more delegates than Clinton, not nearly enough to threaten her lead.
In Kentucky, the popular vote is a virtual tie, though it looks like Clinton will squeak out a narrow victory. But again, on the Democratic side, a victory gives little more than bragging rights. Proportional allocation of delegates, means Clinton gets 28 pledged delegates to Sanders' 27. Of the five super delegates, 2 are supporting Clinton, 2 remain uncommitted, while a fifth super delegate has not yet been chosen. So overall, Clinton leaves Kentucky with three more delegates than Sanders.
This leaves the night as a virtual stand-off. If we include super delegates, Sanders closes his gap on Clinton's lead by one whole delegate.
Clinton now has an estimated 2291 in combined pledged delegates and super delegates who have announced support for her. She is now only 92 delegates away from a majority for the Convention. There are still 946 still available, mostly decided on June 7 when California and New Jersey award delegates. With only 79 delegates up for grabs before then, June 7 is now definitely the day this will be decided.
At this point, Sanders' only hope is to convince many of the 524 super delegates who have pledged to Clinton to switch over to him. That seems highly unlikely. Even if Sanders won all the remaining contests by 60% to 40% AND convinced half of Clinton's super delegates to switch over to him, Clinton would still have a majority. Otherwise, Sanders would have to win all remaining contests by about 95%. Even Trump as an unopposed candidate is not hitting those numbers. Sanders' only hope at this point is some massive game changing event, like Clinton gets indicted or confesses that she is Donald Trump's secret lover, to change the math by such a massive scale. In short, it is not going to happen.
One the Republican side, there was only one contest yesterday: Oregon. Trump is now running unchallenged, but still managed to win only 67% of the vote. Under Oregon's proportional system for delegates, he will get 19 out of 28 delegates, with Cruz getting 5 and Kasich getting 4 (and 1 still undecided).
Trump now has 1160 pledged delegates, 77 short of a majority. There are still 405 delegates at stake, but only 44 more before the final day of Republican primary voting on June 7. So Trump also will not secure a majority before that final day. However, given the lack of any active opponents, his victory also seems inevitable.
In Oregon, Sanders will collect an estimated 35 pledged delegates to Clinton's 26, for a net gain of 9 pledged delegates. Of the State's 13 super delegates, 6 have committed to Clinton, 1 to Sanders, and 6 uncommitted. As a result, Sanders leaves Oregon with 4 more delegates than Clinton, not nearly enough to threaten her lead.
In Kentucky, the popular vote is a virtual tie, though it looks like Clinton will squeak out a narrow victory. But again, on the Democratic side, a victory gives little more than bragging rights. Proportional allocation of delegates, means Clinton gets 28 pledged delegates to Sanders' 27. Of the five super delegates, 2 are supporting Clinton, 2 remain uncommitted, while a fifth super delegate has not yet been chosen. So overall, Clinton leaves Kentucky with three more delegates than Sanders.
This leaves the night as a virtual stand-off. If we include super delegates, Sanders closes his gap on Clinton's lead by one whole delegate.
Clinton now has an estimated 2291 in combined pledged delegates and super delegates who have announced support for her. She is now only 92 delegates away from a majority for the Convention. There are still 946 still available, mostly decided on June 7 when California and New Jersey award delegates. With only 79 delegates up for grabs before then, June 7 is now definitely the day this will be decided.
At this point, Sanders' only hope is to convince many of the 524 super delegates who have pledged to Clinton to switch over to him. That seems highly unlikely. Even if Sanders won all the remaining contests by 60% to 40% AND convinced half of Clinton's super delegates to switch over to him, Clinton would still have a majority. Otherwise, Sanders would have to win all remaining contests by about 95%. Even Trump as an unopposed candidate is not hitting those numbers. Sanders' only hope at this point is some massive game changing event, like Clinton gets indicted or confesses that she is Donald Trump's secret lover, to change the math by such a massive scale. In short, it is not going to happen.
One the Republican side, there was only one contest yesterday: Oregon. Trump is now running unchallenged, but still managed to win only 67% of the vote. Under Oregon's proportional system for delegates, he will get 19 out of 28 delegates, with Cruz getting 5 and Kasich getting 4 (and 1 still undecided).
Trump now has 1160 pledged delegates, 77 short of a majority. There are still 405 delegates at stake, but only 44 more before the final day of Republican primary voting on June 7. So Trump also will not secure a majority before that final day. However, given the lack of any active opponents, his victory also seems inevitable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)