2016: Let Us Smash this Rehash

Frankly, the Republicans are the only ones who benefit from the constant re-articulation of a narrative that puts the blame on Secretary Clinton’s loss on the 12% of Sanders primary voters who went with Trump in the General Election.* 

What is particularly tiresome about this line of argumentation, although it possesses a kernel of truth to it, is that there absolutely would have been a significant number of Clinton primary voters that would not have cast their ballots for Bernie-as-D-nominee (and gone as far as voting for Trump) in November.  Would it have been 12%, probably more like 6%-8%, but I would argue that 1) Bernie would likely have not have turned out as many white Democratic women as Clinton, 2) the GOP corporatist machine (functionally aided by many New Democratic-inclined well-heeled fundraisers who would have sat at home) would have decimated Sanders with a predictable (read: socialist-baiting) and brutal line of attack in the Fall campaign, and 3) many of those Sanders primary voters-Trump general election voters possessed an anti-neo-liberal worldview (which, at times, seemed to be closer to where Trump stood on trade, if you believed what he said).  Without Sanders or a similarly situated candidate, most probably would have sat out the primary election entirely.

The current-day finger-pointing and blame-shifting is painful to witness when the threat to our Republic is so abundantly clear. Outside of personal ego trips, it does the Democratic Party (no matter where one resides within this noble faction) little good to criticize a substantial percentage of the Party’s 2016 electorate.    

Frankly, with high-profile Democrats, including potential 2020’ers like Senator Kamala Harris and Senator Elizabeth Warren, announcing their support for Medicate-for-All legislation, those who belong to the Party of the People should be overjoyed that we might be able to run on a coherent and compelling platform against what is likely to be a weak GOP nominee.

Yes, Virginia, the ’20 Democratic nominee is likely to be someone with backing from Establishment players.  Yes, this person will probably not be a social democrat.  But, given what our nation has experienced since 1/20/17, I for one would gladly take a half-loaf for stable, moderately progressive governance in the Executive Branch.  Right now, given the President we have, he makes Congressman Delaney and Governor McAuliffe look like very appealing options.    

In short, let us bury the unproductive arguments of 2016.  The stakes for the 99% are too high to worry about the past actions of the 12% of one sub-set of voters.  The right candidate, with the right message, can bring them into the fold.

In solidarity.

*For the record, I voted for Senator Sanders in the primary.  It was not an easy decision but ultimately, he was closer to where I stood on a variety of issues.  And yes, I “came home” for the general election and voted for Secretary Clinton, as she was, at the very least, qualified to hold the office, sufficiently progressive on enough issues, and not demonstrably insane like the GOP nominee.  So don’t refer to me “Bernie Bro.”

A Waste of Time

Two thoughts on a theme – National first and Howard County-specific second:

-        The 2020 Democratic presidential field should be bereft of candidates who sought the office previously.  Invigorated blood is what is needed. Sorry Joe, Hillary, and Bernie.  Grab a seat, Martin. The last three Democrats to win the White House were all first-timers when they sought the nomination (’76, ’92, and ’08). Most of the folks who ran before (and whose names are bandied about as possibilities in 2020) are hauling about heavy baggage, fairly acquired or not.  We can’t waste time fighting old wars.  That said, I am certain we will see a doomed-to-failure sequel from someone.  Unfortunately for them, and the electorate.

-        Turning from national to HoCo news, I am getting more than a little irked at the namby-pamby-ness of the Invisible Campaign for County Executive.  I recognize that September is the time when this battle is likely to be joined but I am seeing Kittleman dominate the earned media space this summer.  It reminds me of how the Clinton re-election effort, oh, excuse me, the DNC spent the entire summer prior to the ’96 GOP National Convention beating the ever-loving tar out of the Dole campaign, defining the Republican nominee before he had a chance to establish his own narrative.  Folks can’t expect to win in ’18 just because they have a D next to their name.  Democrats in HoCo need to roll out a progressive platform, provide a solid rationale for their candidacy that appeals to voters, and show an ability to frame a debate. Right now, it feels like an opportunity was lost.  As former British MP Dr. David Owen said about the struggle over the direction of the Labour Party, “it will have to be a fight of passion and of conviction…we are fed up with the fudging and the mudging, we are fed up with slush and mush, we want courage, fight, conviction, and hard work.” 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Fresh Blood: 2020

First, a hand-drawn infographic!

Ok, I may not have captured everyone.  And some were favorite sons (alas, no daughters) in the earlier cycles, but bear with me.

This is a list of all of the Democratic candidates for President since 1952 who 1) lost once and 2) ran again.  A circle means they were the nominee in that cycle.

Some names not on this list: every Democrat elected to the Presidency since 1960 with one exception.

1) John F. Kennedy.  First time presidential candidate in '60.  Tried (unsuccessfully) to get on the national ticket with Stevenson as the VP pick in '56.  Won the nomination and General Election.
2) Jimmy Carter.  First time presidential candidate in '76.  Tried (unsuccessfully) to get on the national ticket with McGovern as the VP pick in '72.  Won the nomination and General Election.
3) Bill Clinton.  First time presidential candidate in '92.  Thought about it in '88 but passed.  Won the nomination and General Election, twice.
4) Barack Obama.  First time presidential candidate in '08.  Won the nomination and General Election, twice.

LBJ is on the list, and he did win on his own in '64 (against Goldwater, not the strongest opponent the GOP could have fielded that cycle).  That said, he lost the bid for the nomination in '60, came to the office only on the passing of JFK, and was clearly in for a tough battle for the nomination in '68 when he famously declared that he would neither seek, nor accept the nomination of the Democratic Party for President.

And of course there were those who lost on a national ticket as a VP or VP candidate and who ran for the Presidency later...and lost again (Muskie in '68 and '72 respectively, Shriver in '72 and '76 respectively, Lieberman in '00 and '04 respectively).  Mondale, of course, won in '76 with Carter (when he passed on the race himself, citing a lack of "fire in the belly") but lost in his own bid in '84.  Al Gore and Joe Biden have already been accounted for in this chart.

So...while the past is not always prologue...I would like to see some new names come to the fore for the Democratic Party in 2020.  History has not been kind to the "not one-and-done" club. You have to admit, we have run (and won with) some excellent first-timers.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Showdown Near Lake Artemesia

A quick analysis of last night’s Maryland Democratic Gubernatorial Debate:

If one accepts the premise that a key success metric is: “Did Candidate X achieve what they set out to accomplish?” Then by that standard, Delegate Heather Mizeur won the first debate.  At least she fared the best of the three candidates on the stage.  If I were grading their performances, I would probably give her a B+ (I am a tough grader).

Mizeur needed to look and sound like a Governor.  Her presentation was largely positive and policy-focused, she came across like a Chief Executive.  This was helped by the fact that Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown and Attorney General Doug Gansler chewed up a considerable amount of clock with their back-and-forth squabbling.

Mizeur needed to stay on message and focus on conveying the key points of her platform.  Again, she was largely successful in this regard.  From a technical perspective, she delivered a superlative response to the “experience” question by citing concrete examples of how she helped “get big things done.” Excellent pivot.

Perhaps she spoke about a living wage one time too many; and there could have been more “loft” in her closing statement, a more compelling articulation of her vision for Maryland.  That said, by not engaging in the finger-pointing or getting caught up in the muck and mire, she made the most of her opportunity.  

What Mizeur needs to watch out for?  Rising poll numbers will make Mizeur a target in a second debate.  With such a scenario, she has to be prepared to handle tough questions from the moderator/panelists and the other two candidates.  The trick will be to stay on the high road while being able to respond, effectively, to any criticisms.  She also needs a better closing statement, something that wins over hearts and minds by simultaneously elevating and grounding her slogan: “Real Results for Maryland Families” into language that connects with voters.  Could be as simple as a re-working of one of the themes she touched on earlier.  For example: “it’s time to get big things done, for a Maryland for all of us.”

I would probably give Gansler a B-.  His opening statement was solid. If he was running in an open primary, I would probably have given him a B but his profile and positioning tend to be to the right of Brown and there are simply fewer likely Democratic primary voters – in a closed primary – who occupy that space.  His attacks on Brown were better-crafted and executed than Brown’s critiques of Gansler.  Gansler also didn’t come across as a seething rage-aholic, which is a plus for the Attorney General.

What Gansler needs to watch out for?  Gansler has shown he can throw a punch, but he risks alienating potential voters (most notably soft Brown supporters who could be convinced to support another candidate as well as persuadable undecideds who might be averse, attitudinally, to “comparative" campaigning). So he has to worry about hitting too hard, or too often.  Doing so might open up the temperament question, which leads straight to the character issue that remains a looming menace to his candidacy.

Brown delivered a C/C+ performance.  His attempt at tagging Gansler with the “reprimand” back-fired.  His opening statement was a bit bio-heavy, but candidates seeking higher offices can get away with spending some time talking about their personal narrative…to a certain extent.   Both Mizeur and Gansler did a better job of discussing issues that voters care about in their opening remarks.

What Brown needs to watch out for?  Well the good news from Brown’s off night is that his expectations might be lower for the second debate.  He clearly didn’t accomplish what he set out to do and he looked vulnerable in the process. His campaign has the most work to do in terms of message re-tooling and debate prep.  He did well when he talked about service…but he rarely linked that theme up with a specific issue or Higher Purpose (the role of government in, say, education…or health care).  Connect the dots from a philosophic underpinning to how he, as Governor, can turn that vision into a reality, a reality that will help the lives of Maryland families by X, Y, Z. And, frankly, he needs to be less cautious…while also framing better criticisms of Gansler.  When he tried to go on the offense, he swung and missed too many times.

The next debate should be considered Must-See TV.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.