On Donna Brazile and "the Deal"

Of course, the downside of being an essayist of exceedingly moderate and highly localized renown is that I am oft beseeched to lend my Waterman pen in support or in opposition to one Howard County issue or another (without even the slightest hint of a promise of remuneration!).  So, my mailbox is jam-packed with entreaties to comment upon the wretched petit fascists swarming about in HoCo.  There will, rest assured, be time to discuss them and their ilk. But once again, this author feels compelled to offer thoughts on the national scene.

Of late, Donna Brazile has been excoriated (in many cases, rather ruthlessly and unfairly) for her book where she shared her thoughts on, amongst other issues, the Clinton 2016 presidential campaign and the DNC (insofar as those entities were “distinct”).  As a political operator and strategist, there is no disputing that she is top-flight.  Having enjoyed one of her earlier works, Cooking with Grease, I will most likely purchase her latest tome, Hacks.   

Frankly, I can’t fault the DNC for the arrangement they made with the Clinton campaign in 2015.  No matter how many Democrats supported Bernie (the current author being one of them), the good Senator from Vermont was not a Democrat.  That left the watery gruel that was O’Malley (clearly eyeing a Cabinet post or 2020), Chafee (clearly viewing Earth from Mars via Providence), Webb (clearly out of touch), and Lessig (clearly engaging in some form of performance art).  When you have a candidate who in 2015 (essentially) was the clear front-runner and likely eventual nominee, and who actually belonged to the party, that person is…well… primus inter pares comes to mind.

But, some may sputter, what about the supposed precious neutrality of the DNC?  While the image of the DNC as some sort of disinterested referee is quaint, it doesn’t square with the mission of electing Democrats to public office.  I still maintain that Senator Sanders would have been absolutely savaged by Trump and the Republicans in the General Election.  Possibly enough to lose the White House, and probably enough to burn the electoral dreams of many down-ticket Democrats.  Secretary Clinton, neoliberal that she is, and the Clinton campaign, as bland as it turned out to be, was the far safer bet for Democrats nationwide. 

So, arrangements were made; nothing illegal (unlike the allegations swirling around Trump, his family, and some of his top aides) and frankly, I am not having a ton of ethical issues with the deal, as I understand it.  I find it helpful to learn the rules of the game before playing it (a lesson forgotten by Clinton ’08 when it came to delegate math) and clearly, Clinton ’16 had the primary campaign rules all sorted out. 

With so much “righteous” indignation coming from the Republicans over this tempest in a Diet Coke can, I wonder if those Democrats offended by the deal are wondering why they have all of these new-found allies on the right…and who really stands to benefit from stoking the ashes of this “controversy.”

In solidarity.

A Crisis of Legitimacy

Originally posted in mid-December 2016.  I pulled it for a variety of reasons. Here is the post, as it was written:

Of the seven closest presidential elections in U.S. history, as determined by requiring the fewest number of vote flips to give the other major candidate a majority in the Electoral College (since the popular vote began to be recorded in the 1824 presidential election), three have occurred in the last five elections.

In eras of relative partisan parity at the national level, close elections will happen.  Such was the case in the late 19^th century.  Such is the case now. 

Of those seven closest elections, the losing candidate won the popular vote in three of them, Gore in 2000, Tilden in 1876, and Clinton in 2016.

Small, and sometimes large, events can make a difference.  Gore’s lackluster debate performances, Ralph Nader, and some ballot design choices in Florida cost him the 2000 election.    Tilden was defeated in an election marred by violence, threats of violence, and fraudulent activities throughout the unreconstructed South, requiring an Electoral Commission to resolve the matter (along with some backroom dealing better known as the Compromise of 1877). 

However, these issues were home-grown. 

Clinton’s case is different from the other two as it represents a situation where a foreign power apparently sought to influence our presidential election and, by doing so, potentially changed the outcome.

This author supports the bipartisan call to investigate Russian involvement in our presidential elections.    Foreign interference in our electoral process cannot be countenanced.  Further, if after taking office, it is proven that the current presumptive PEOTUS was aware of, and actively supported, such efforts, the U.S. Congress, in accordance with their Constitutional responsibilities, should begin impeachment proceedings.

Closest presidential elections in U.S. history:

             National Popular         National Popular         Votes to Flip  

              Vote Difference          Vote % lead               

1.     2000    Gore + 543, 895          Gore + 0.5%                269 (.00025%)

2.     1884    Cleveland +57,577      Cleveland +0.6%         524  (.0052%)

3.     1876    Tilden +254,235          Tilden +3.0%               445 (.00529%)

4.     1916    Wilson +578,140         Wilson +3.1%              1,711 (.009%)

5.     1960    Kennedy +112,827      Kennedy +0.17%         12,236 (.018%)

6.     2016    Clinton +2,840,337      Clinton +2.1%              38,599 (.028%)

7.     2004    Bush +3,010,610         Bush +2.5%                 59,300 (.048%)

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

On Hospitality Best Practices, Ethics, and Democracy

“You see, there are still faint glimmers of civilization left in this barbaric slaughterhouse that was once known as humanity. Indeed that's what we provide in our own modest, humble, insignificant... oh, fuck it.” – M. Gustave, The Grand Budapest Hotel

Such is the decrescendo of our times; a diminished hope that trails off into a resigned shrug.   One can only hope that our “better angels” can keep the embers of our shared humanity glowing.

I have been reading about the ethical intersection between the actor – the act – and the act’s consequences; and while I don’t expect presidential candidates to spend time on the trail invoking Aristotle, Kant, and/or Mills…I am comforted knowing when they are capable of such introspection.  I would like to believe that the next leader of the Free World is capable of grounding their actions in something more than brute instinct or narrow self-interest. 

Perhaps it is too much to ask of our public officials.  “Every country has the government it deserves” according to de Maistre, or perhaps it was Jonathan Winters.  Either way, the quote portends a long and bitter election season.  

Hope (such as it exists) must rest in those who, at the national, state, and local level, aspire to promote the common good while appealing to our virtuous nature. 

2016 might not be the year of the Philosopher-Statesperson, but at the very least, they can toss some kindling on the bonfire.  Keep those glimmers gleaming.  

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

National Mottos and Hard Numbers

There is an isolated society in Bolivia, numbering no more than 600 souls, who dwell three hours away from Riberalta when the roads are passable, six when they aren’t.  They believe that we die every night, during our dreams, and we awaken into a parallel universe where everything appears to be a continuation of the same existence.  It is our dogged persistence of memory, they claim, that makes it seem as though this continual passing and renewal is nothing more than a short recess from our consciousness from the same life we had the day before.

Every so often, especially when tumultuous events occur, it feels as though they might be onto something.  Let the physicists & theologians sort this out.  God help us if the mathematicians get involved though.  This surly bunch of data-set grinders will bog the entire process down.

But mathematics does have its uses.  For example, as of this writing, it tells us that the itinerant Stateswoman, aka the One True Sage of Chappaqua, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton stands at the precipice of claiming the Democratic nomination for the American Presidency.  The New York Times delegate tracker says she has 1,768 pledged delegates along with 525 unpledged (aka Super-Boss) delegates.  Employing a simple mathematical function, that works out to 2,293…or 96.2% of the total number of delegates required for a simple majority at the Democratic Convention.        

With 930 delegates remaining up-for-grabs, it is likely that she will far exceed the 90 delegates she needs to hit the magic number of 2,383.  Barring a cataclysmic shift in the tectonic plates that undergird our politics in 2016 anno Domini, it is extremely unlikely that her only remaining foe, the at-times blustery Senator Bernard "Bernie" Sanders will win enough of the pledged delegates and sway enough of the unpledged delegates to wrest the nomination away from the former FLOTUS/Senator/Secretary of State.

How high a hurdle?  Sanders would need to register huge wins in states like California and New Jersey, blow-out landslide margins north of 70%, in order to stand a chance of significantly diminishing his pledged delegate deficit (currently 274 delegates).  Beyond that, he would need to convince the Establishment Democrats that he would not be tossed like dry maple tree branches into the industrial wood chipper that is the Trump Attack Machine.  The safe money, for these solons and activists, is to stay the course with Hillary, even if she stumbles badly on June 7…which appears unlikely.

I appreciate the hard-fought effort against long odds.  I think former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, in particular, has been an excellent Sanders surrogate and, contrary to the opinions of some, has a future in electoral politics, if she chooses that path.  I think his movement will live on.

However, as each day passes, the parallel universe options for the Sanders presidential campaign all appear to be similar, with June 15, 2016 being the effective end of the road.  They get this in certain parts of Bolivia...but will Sanders and Company?

Stay tuned, as more will follow. 

So What's Next? '16/'18 Edition

Now that Maryland’s 2016 Primary Election is in the firm and unforgiving grasp of the past, shrewd Howard County political observers are now focused on the Long Slog to the General Election…not only for the importance it has in and of itself, but also as a harbinger for 2018 (and beyond).

At the precinct level, there were some quirky voting patterns evident in the 2014 returns.  Were they the by-product of a weak Democratic gubernatorial candidate? Second presidential term, mid-term fatigue with the party that holds the White House?  A local Republican Party that is showing signs of life in not just the West but in the swing First County Council district and generally reliably Democratic Columbia?  Was 2014 a once in a decade (or generation) event, or a sign of votes to come?

Thought experiment.  Trump is so idiosyncratic, it would be difficult to construe a Trump victory in Howard County in November to mean that we are on the precipice of a local liberal/conservative realignment.  Even if he obtained a majority of the local vote, and managed to win election to the Presidency, Trump would have plenty of time between January 20, 2017 and November 2018 to completely wreck the GOP brand.  In such a scenario, the over/under for County Executive Allan Kittleman to call for a 2020 primary challenge to the Donald would be June 30, 2018.  But I am getting ahead of myself.

That said, with the County Exec up for re-election, multiple state legislative and Board of Education races of interest, and four open County Council seats in the ’18 cycle, you better believe that local operatives, activists, and power brokers will spend many chilly November nights pouring over the ’16 Official General Election Results data, searching for portents that will inform their decision-making processes.  

Amidst all of this uncertainty, all we can rely upon is mercurial human nature itself. 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Cummings as the Vice Presidential Nominee

#2

Like all of you, I read the Esquire article promoting Congressman Elijah Cummings (D- MD) as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential candidate in 2016.

I have commended Representative Cummings for his leadership during the recent crisis in Baltimore. He really showed his mettle.  That said…Vice President? His selection wouldn’t be a bad choice, but I am not certain he would be a top 20 pick, maybe top 50.

He checks some boxes.  He is a capable legislator, a better-than-average Member of Congress. I am sincerely not trying to gosh-darn him with faint praise.  Really.  He is sufficiently progressive for most Democrats.  He would hold his own on the debate stage against whomever the Republicans dredged up, which is not a trivial matter.  He would be qualified to become President, which is a far more significant measure. That said, I am not convinced he is the best option from Maryland, much less all of the other states in the Union. 

Of course much depends on several unsettled factors.  The identity of the Democratic nominee is not yet known.  Yes, I have done the math just like you have.  I know Secretary Hillary Clinton is well poised to become the presumptive nominee in the near future.  But what if Senator Bernie Sanders becomes the nominee? Or what if a political earthquake occurs and a third person receives the Democratic nomination this summer?  The article assumes Clinton, but it’s not a done deal…not yet.

Congressman Cummings might match up better for Senator Sanders, although I think Bernie, if I may be familiar, and perhaps a majority of the Democratic Party might prefer a woman as a running mate…with Senator Klobuchar, Senator Gillibrand, or Hillary Clinton herself being interesting choices. 

Part of my issue with Cummings, frankly, is his age.  With the two most likely Democratic nominees being rather mature citizens from a certain generation, I would prefer a bit of youth with the #2 pick.  Yes, both Clinton and Sanders seem indefatigable, but we have all seen the age progression that occurs.  POTUS years are not the same as non-POTUS years.  I don’t think it is a bad idea to have someone in their 40s or 50s holding down the VP slot.  I like Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Sherrod Brown, but they are in the same age range as Cummings.

Moreover, despite the recent GOP successes in our corner of the universe, Maryland is not a swing state.  Electorally, there is little to be gained by such a choice.  Thus, while former Governor Martin O’Malley would be a qualified selection, he doesn’t help with the math to 270 electoral votes.  The same logic applies for Secretary Tom Perez, who like O’Malley, I would probably pick ahead of Cummings.

So who then?  I would short list Secretary Julian Castro.  His presence would likely not flip Texas, not in 2016, but I believe that that state will realign and become more competitive in the not-too-distant future.  Clinton – Castro would be a heck of a good ticket.  The case for Castro is simply more compelling than the case for Cummings. I may expand on this later.

And of course there is the double-down philosophy.  Let’s see who did that in recent history, oh yes, Bill Clinton with Al Gore in 1992.  Two modern (for the time), accomplished Southern Baby Boomers.  Clinton-Klobuchar would reflect a similar line of thinking; Clinton-Gillibrand might be trickier, given the electoral issues related to residency.  Of course the NY-NY angle probably doesn’t help Clinton, unless Trump is 1) the nominee and 2) greatly expands the playing field…in which case Clinton has much bigger problems.  Klobuchar would definitely offer more upside than Cummings from an electoral perspective.

It’s too bad that Kamala Harris isn’t a Senator yet, although if California is competitive in 2016, see the note on Gillibrand.

Personally, I think Senator Cory Booker and Governor Deval Patrick would be better choices than Cummings.  Both are statewide office-holders, NJ is more of a swing state than MA or MD.  And yes, Patrick turns 60 this year, but he is a youthful almost 60.

While not a fan of dynasties, I do admit that a Clinton – Obama (Michelle) ticket would be instant-awesome-in-a-can.

In short, I know those of us in the Free State admire Congressman Cummings. I do.  Many of us think he should have run for the Senate this year.  I did.  Would I be OK with him as the Democratic Vice Presidential choice?  I would.

But I think there are better options, from both the political and governing points-of-view, and I think the Democrats need the strongest ticket possible to win this November.  Hopefully by a wide enough margin, with sufficient coat-tails, to allow Congressman Cummings to become Chairman Cummings.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

2020 Foresight

Happy Super Tuesday Eve!

When I first came to DC, my employer at the time had a list of "lessons learned" from Senator Phil Gramm's presidential campaign on the wall.  I wish I kept a copy of it.

So, here are some thoughts for 2020 presidential aspirants, based on the lessons learned, re-learned, and forgotten thus far in the 2016 election cycle.

1.  Define your opponents early and vigorously.  While the media historically serves a larger role here, I don't believe I have witnessed a presidential candidate as good as Donald Trump when it comes to establishing narrative frames for his opponents, with his re-positioning of Jeb! being Trump's crowning achievement in this regard (to date).  Governor Bush never recovered from the low energy tag and the characterization helped expedite the collapse of a candidacy that 1) never quite found its voice and 2) was fundamentally out of step with the resurgent populism that pervades the national mood.   Note:  Jeb should have recalled how effectively Rove et. al. were in defining Senator Kerry in 2004...when his own brother was up for re-election.  Remember swift-boating?  It went right to Kerry's perceived strength and deflated it.  Apparently Jeb forgot that lesson from 12 short years ago.

2. Exploit social media to its fullest  Again, Trump might be sui generis within the political realm given his decades-long fame/infamy in our popular culture and his understanding of how to create (and dominate) news in these early days of the 21st Century.  Future candidates should nonetheless peruse his tweets very, very carefully to see how he was able to shape conversations over the course of days, weeks, and months.  This lesson applies regardless of the milieu, Facebook, Twitter, or DodgeWaffle - whatever social media outlets exist in 2020.

3.  Don't hesitate when it comes to going on the offense.  You can't hang back and let your opponents define you, and when you attack when it is too late, it comes across as flailing from a position of weakness.  In short, don't be afraid to go "comparative" early...as long as doing so is in your best strategic interest and it doesn't subvert the candidate's brand.

4.  Establish your brand early.  To that point, you can't undergo a character transformation mid-way through a campaign.  Kasich came close though, he went from quirky, quick-tempered policy wonk to folksy, can-do Midwestern Huggin' Gov in what seemed like a fairly rapid metamorphosis.  It may not take him to March 16, but it allows him to occupy a distinct, and distinguishable, position in the present GOP field.

5. Be prepare to be flexible when it comes to strategy and tactics.  Not to pile on Jeb, but his by-the-book campaign was far too by-the-book.  They failed to adapt to meet the needs of the present environment, choosing instead to ignore the Trump ascendancy until it was far too late.  The summer poll numbers were more than sufficient to warrant a more aggressive posture toward Mr. Trump but the Bush team was too focused on running a playbook for a completely different ballgame.

6. The culture is inseparable from the political.  There is a book concept in here somewhere.  In a pop culture world obsessed with louder, vacuous and/or one-note, but media savvy individuals... is it any surprise that such figures are faring well in the US electorally?  I am not suggesting that 2020 presidential candidates should start appearing on as many reality shows as possible between now and November '20, but they need to think about the larger cultural background and factor that into their planning accordingly.

7. Don't over staff.  Walker.  Bush.  Just so much money wasted that could have been spent on voter contact.  No need for dozens of policy advisors, it's a political campaign and not a think tank.

8. Don't inflate your own expectations.  Come on Senator Rubio. The "3-2-1" approach set yourself up for failure right from the outset of the primary season. It is one of the reasons why he has not emerged as the main alternative to Trump (that and his disastrous debate meltdown, which reminded me of Muskie's crying (melting snow?!) moment...something that was so memorable and so damaging that it will not be soon forgotten).

9. Make it about "the people."  This is why Senator Sander's ads have been better than Senator Clinton's.  His paid communications tend to be more "us"-focused while Senator Clinton still spends too much time talking about how unique her candidacy is.  His are more dialogue driven while hers tend to be more monologue-oriented, and people like being talked with, not at.  I am perhaps over-stating the case for illustration purposes, but go ahead, compare the ads.  Remove the specific candidate and ask, which make me feel more of a sense of belonging?  Which are motivating?  Would Clinton be faring better if she ran Sanders-style ads?  Would Sanders be performing worse if he was running Clinton-style ads?  Something to ponder.

Feel free to save this and post it on your fridge.  The magnet can hold it for four years.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

  

An Equal Number of Luftballons [of Ends and Odds]

SAD, 2016, and Thanks:

1) January is fast approaching, which can be a challenging month for those with seasonal affective disorder (SAD).  For more information about this form of depression, including symptoms and management, interested readers should visit: 

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/seasonal-affective-disorder/basics/definition/con-20021047

2) Turning to Campaign 2016: The Saunter to the White House, there is more than a grain of truth in the hackneyed phrase, “You can’t beat something with nothing.”  At least one strategy exists that could allow a candidate not named Clinton to obtain the Democratic presidential nomination.  It is written on my home whiteboard. That said, a strategy alone is bupkis in the absence of a candidate capable of executing it.  As of this writing, Elizabeth Warren comes closest to the Ideal Protagonist for the scenario…but she hasn’t entered the contest.  At least not yet.  A good site for information and updates on the Draft Warren movement can be found here: http://runwarrenrun.org/.  Check it out, perhaps pass it along to some friends.

3) I would like to thank all of my readers for taking time out of your lives to peruse my reflections, idiosyncratic meanderings, and critical analyses.  Our Friend in Ellicott City posted just this morning: “The most important realization I've had about my own writing is that I don't write for other people to read.  I write to know what I think.”  I will readily admit that there is a tension that bubbles up, not infrequently, between what I want to write and what I think folks would actually read.  Most of the time, the former wins out but the “if no one hears the tree falling in the forest, etc…” concern is always there.  In any event, I am looking forward to the possibilities of 2015.  As long as there is news, plentiful grist for the mill as it were, there will be Content.  Precious, precious content.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

These Three Things

Support: the efforts of the Horizon Foundation and their coalition partners (known collectively as Sugar Free Kids Maryland) to terminate, with extreme prejudice, the state’s sales tax on bottled water.  Tax relief combined with promoting healthier beverage options? Seems like sound public policy.

Support: the decision by the Obama Administration to move in the direction of normalizing relations with Cuba.  Up until recently, our policy toward our neighbor has been caught up in a Cold War vortex, with some modifications over the past couple of decades.  I am well aware of the regime’s human rights record, which doesn't exactly differentiate Cuba from at least 30 other nations I could rattle off.  This presents an opportunity for the U.S. to expand our influence, and promote our ideals, during what promises to be a transitional period in Cuba’s history. It is better that the diplomatic shift occurs now before any potential post-Castro chaos ensues.  The differing perspectives I have heard today tend to be backward looking, politically motivated, and neglectful of the present-day needs of the Cuban people.  President Obama is dealing with the world as it is, and a reality-based foreign policy is a very good thing.

Support: an open exchange of ideas among Democrats as the Party constructs a new path forward.  A rigorous discussion among multiple presidential candidates would help facilitate a much-needed national conversation as to what constitutes a Democratic governing vision and which principles and policies we should emphasize as we seek to regain our electoral footing. 

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Episode 90: The GOP Awakens (2016)

Well I promised a brief look at the potential contours of, and possible candidates within, the 2016 GOP field, so here it goes:

First, my long-list contains 64 names.  Beyond the Heavyweights and several Contenders, it includes some complete non-starters, a few has-beens, and a couple of never-was types.  The most shocking element here is that the road to the Republican presidential nomination is so open that many of the lesser names could gaze into a mirror and say, without an excessive amount of self-delusion, “You know, I could pull 15,000 votes in Iowa and win a ticket to New Hampshire.”  And the mirror wouldn’t even laugh back.

Charlie Cook, the celebrated political analyst and prognosticator of the highest order (who, by the way, nailed the closeness of the MD gubernatorial race while some folks Who Shall Remain Nameless were saying that LG Anthony Brown had a 93% chance of victory), was recently quoted in The Kansas City Star as expecting the eventual GOP nominee to be a “tea party Senator or Governor from the Midwest.”

Actually that call isn’t as bold as it might seem.  If you winnow the list of names down to the 20 candidates most likely to run, and further assume that only around 12 of those will go as far as establishing an exploratory committee, there are multiple tea party-aligned Senators and heartland Governors in the mix [in boldface below].  Let’s assume the following field going into August of next year:

Senator Rand Paul (KY)

Senator Ted Cruz (TX)

Governor Bobby Jindal (LA)

Dr. Ben Carson (MD)

Governor Rick Perry (TX)

Former US Senator Rick Santorum (PA) or former Governor Mike Huckabee (AR)

Business Executive Carly Fiorina (CA)

Governor Chris Christie (NJ)

Former Governor Jeb Bush (FL) or (unlikely) former Governor Mitt Romney (MA)

Governor Scott Walker (WI)

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton (MD)

Possibly either Governor Mike Pence (IN) or Governor John Kasich (OH)

And a couple of others, such as a Congressman Peter King (NY) or Senator Bob Corker (TN)

Carson falls somewhere between Morry “The Grizz” Taylor and former Senator Fred Thompson on the Serious Candidate Spectrum.  Is he really running for a statewide office in Maryland?  For an appointment as Surgeon General? Stay tuned, as…

Wait. I am not done.  Bolton is one-note on defense and is no more than a Cabinet possibility at best.  If you assume the “others” will end up being “also-rans” then at least a third and possibly close to half of the Serious Candidates [in terms of likelihood of obtaining the nomination, not necessarily ability to govern] will be tea party Senators or Rust Belt Govs.

Oh did I forget Senator Marco Rubio (FL)?  No.   I think he will choose to take a pass and look for another opportunity down the road. I think he understands that the electorate likes to “fix” the perceived shortcomings of the current Administration.   Carter too soft, too bogged down in details?  Let’s get a tough talking, CEO-type in Reagan.  George HW Bush too out-of-touch with the problems of working families?  Let’s elect the populist from Arkansas who eats at McDonald’s. George W. Bush doesn’t have the intellectual heft? Let’s vote for the Brainiac Senator from Illinois.  Obama too cerebral/aloof, lacking a long history of building relationships with Congress?  Perhaps it’s time for someone who comes across as warmer, or someone who has been around the Establishment longer, a “Known Entity.”    Hmmm…

Of course this is all incredibly reductionist.  If I had to bet, I would say the Republican field will consist of six Serious possibilities after the Iowa caucuses (slightly more than the historical norm as I believe multiple campaigns will be prepping for a long, drawn-out process).  There will be two social conservatives, two more establishment types, Rand Paul and someone else, perhaps Fiorina.  In the end, I expect it will come down to a slog for delegates with perhaps as many as three Serious candidates competing until the end of the primary season.  The Establishment choice (Bush although I would keep an eye on Pence), Rand Paul and maybe someone who was accruing just enough Delegates along the way to prevent anyone else from obtaining a majority, someone who might use that clout at the Convention to get a spot on the ticket or at least be a king (or queen) maker.  Senator Cruz may be that third person in this scenario.  Oh for the joys of a Brokered Convention.  Let the political scientists dream!

Anyway, I am certain I will talk about the individual attributes and policy stances of all of these people, and others, over the course of the next 14 months or so.  Everyone is in their decision-making mode now.  Go/No Go.  Internal/family deliberations will conclude over the next few weeks.  I expect a couple candidates will announce early, in the first quarter of 2015, while most will state their intentions in April, May and early June of next year.

Just a bit of Hot Stove League speculation as we hurtle toward 1/1/15.   

Looking forward to focusing a bit more on state and local public policy issues in the coming weeks.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.