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.

  

"A Tremulous Cadence"

It is altogether possible that Governor Martin O’Malley – Hillary or no Hillary - will receive a good look from Democratic activists in the early states, most notably Iowa and New Hampshire. 

Far from being a Celtic rock Dukakis, he has both a record of accomplishments and, importantly, a personality that could appeal to Democrats of varying ideological stripes.  This is important because, since 1976, the Democratic Party has tended to nominate candidates who are, at the very least, acceptable to the progressive and moderate constituencies who dominate the action in the presidential primaries and caucuses.  

Looking at the recent Democratic nominees who went on to become President:

1) In 1976, then-Governor Jimmy Carter cobbled together a coalition that included many liberal voters (who might have otherwise voted for Mo Udall or Fred Harris, to name a couple of the more prominent progressives in the field) as well as a number of moderate and conservative Democrats, despite the candidacies of the hawkish New Dealer Scoop Jackson and Governor George Wallace, among others. 

2) In 1992, then-Governor Bill Clinton welded together a campaign narrative that highlighted progressive solutions while using populist, and at times rather conservative, rhetoric.  With Brown firmly positioned on the left and Tsongas pushing a message of fiscal responsibility…and aided by the lack of serious alternatives (No Cuomo, No Nunn, No Gore, no Gephardt, No Jackson, etc…), Clinton crafted a winning coalition that was in a commanding position by March 17 (the date of the Illinois and Michigan primaries) and was on a virtual glide path to the nomination by April 28 (the day of the Pennsylvania primary).

3) Senator John Edwards, on paper, was best equipped to occupy this space going into the 2008 cycle.  However, Mr. “Two Americas” never quite got on-track.  Crushed between the Clinton machine (which was running closer to the political center) and the Obama movement (a conventionally left-of-center effort), he suspended his 2008 campaign by the end of January.  The progressive/populist energy that might have fueled an Edwards candidacy was largely absorbed by then-Senator Obama, whose positioning (and superior understanding of the Democratic delegate selection process) enabled him to defeat Senator Clinton and secure the nomination. 

So what is my point?  It is simply this:

1) If Hillary runs, voters in the early caucus and primary states are still going to consider alternatives.  Manchin is too conservative and Sanders is too liberal.  That leaves two possible Clinton alternatives in the  “sweet spot” – former Senator Webb and O’Malley.  And Webb is out there already.  Of course the entry of a Biden (unlikely if Hillary runs) or Warren (a possible game-changer) could disrupt this equation. 

2) If Hillary doesn’t run, the floodgates will open and there will be multiple candidates rushing to fill the progressive/populist (but with centrist appeal) void. O’Malley will be one of many such aspirants.

So O’Malley, by saying that he is “very seriously considering running in 2016” (a statement equally true if he uttered it in 2009) but also indicating that he will decide in the spring, is putting himself in a position where he will more likely be reacting to events, rather than shaping the world around him.  Which doesn’t seem very Presidential, if you ask this author. 

In short, he should be viewed as ramping up his efforts, rather than adopting what feels like a “let’s-wait-and-see” approach.  I know he says that Clinton’s decision will not impact his choice…but it sure seems like it.

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.

A Morning Conversation

“So why isn’t the Administration cutting deals on Keystone? On immigration?”

“Both fine questions Slats, but the President seems to be doubling-down.  Partially out of principle, partially because of optics…he doesn’t want to appear to be getting rolled, and the last element is that he doesn’t have much in the way of negotiating partners, with the GOP leadership in Congress being what it is.”

“Almost makes Newt look statesman-like.”

“Might be an overstretch. Is that coffee in that cup?”

“No. It’s a Drambuie Sunrise. It’s all the rage in Zurich now.”

“Sure.  Anyway, it is shaping up to be a brutal two years for 44. The only good news for the White House is that HRC is going to take a fair amount of heat.”

“The discourse is going to become increasingly polarized as candidates for the Big Chair appeal to their respective bases.  Compromise is going to be difficult on most domestic issues.  No will to deal, not with the aspirants bashing DC as they crisscross Iowa and New Hampshire. ”

“And the traditional pivot to a foreign policy focus isn’t promising either.   ISIS/ISIL, Putin indulging his revanchist inclinations, no hope of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.  What’s left? Maybe going after narco-terrorists in the Western Hemisphere?"       

 

“It’s 11:45 pm in America.”

“Perhaps not so dour a prognosis, but Happy Days have not yet arrived.”

“They should have spun off Potsie and Ralph Malph.  A good screwball buddy sitcom could have really helped with ABC’s Tuesday night prime time line up.”

“That isn’t what I meant and that is also a debatable proposition.  But I would have watched “The Tuscaderos!”

“Santorum would love another popular resurgence of ‘50s nostalgia. Of course he would embrace it without any sense of irony and he would forget all of the ‘unpleasant’ parts." 

“Of course not, the actual history of the time wouldn’t fit with his image of that decade as some sort of halcyon era of permanent triumphalism.”

“Pleasantville all over again, at least the first half of that movie.”

“Might not even need to worry about Santorum running again.  He said he would announce his decision in June of 2015.”

“Late.   Who is going to sit on the sidelines that long…for him?  The money and talent will flow elsewhere.”

“Yep.  It would be a significant infrastructure deficit. However, he still has some support on the ground in Iowa.  But he doesn’t want to limp into the fall debates looking like an also-ran four months before the Caucuses.”

“But if he runs, it will just make the Democratic Party seem considerably more centrist.”

“Santorum.  Cruz. Paul.  All together on one stage?  Hillary should be so lucky.”

“Or Bernie Sanders.”

“You need to spend more time state-side.  That just isn’t going to happen.  Are you catching your news on RT?”

“Heaven forbid! Pravda redux.  Now, what do they have on tap here?”

“It's a Panera. So nothing.”

“Right, let’s go.”

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

 

      

"Time Keeps On Slippin'"

I will keep this brief.  The 4:05 pm to Saskatoon is boarding soon and my sprint from Parking Garage A to the ticket counter resulted in four exclamations to “Watch out,” two muttered apologies and one spilled latte. Thankfully, the coffee wasn’t mine.

Anyone who believes they can run for President, seeking the nomination of a major party, and wait on announcing until the summer of 2015 is either a complete dolt…or Hillary Clinton, because she could get away with it.   She wouldn’t tarry to that extent, but she has advantages that none of her likely Democratic rivals can match: astronomically high name recognition & solid Fav/Unfav numbers among likely D primary voters/caucus attendees, a broad network of supporters (ranging from top-flight operatives to keyed-in local elected officials and activists), massive fundraising potential, a spouse who (when on his game) is probably the most persuasive advocate for Democratic candidates and causes since JFK, and a personal biography that seems ideally suited for the Challenges of Today.  Do you think Bernie Sanders is going to stop that juggernaut?  Extremely unlikely.

She could afford to wait, if she wanted to. That said, she won’t. I would wager dollars to doughnuts, that Clinton will most likely announce her intentions in early 2015...at some point between January 1 and March 31...most likely in the first half of that window.

For the record: I am not, viscerally, a huge fan of HRC.  Intellectually, I admire her accomplishments and respect her brainpower and toughness.  Genuine heavy mettle.  I think she would be a good president, perhaps even very good.

Perhaps I just find the Clinton family saga a little tiresome.  Maybe my thinking on the matter will evolve, and it is all about making the best choice from the available options.  That said, my last votes for a Clinton occurred back in ’92 (once in March, again in November).  Pissed off on how he handled the Lani Guinier nomination, I decided I would not vote for his re-election in 1996.  I ended up casting my ballot for Steve Forbes in the GOP primary, and for Senator Bob Dole in the General. 

But that was the other Clinton.  Fast forward to late 2007, I favored then-Senator Obama’s stance on the War and his overall positioning, slightly to the left of then-Senator Clinton… a good mainstream progressive from the Heartland. 

But now, deep into the second term of the Obama Presidency, with Official DC turning its critical, menaced and slightly rum-soaked eyes to 2016 and whispering of Iowa, of New Hampshire…and facing the near inevitability of yet another Clinton campaign.  One must ask, is this her time? 

In the post WWII era, few candidates who aren’t sitting Presidents, incumbent Vice Presidents or Bushes have had such a clear road to the nomination of a major party. Adlai Stevenson’s second run in ’56 comes close, and even he had to contend with Estes Kefauver, who was no slacker.

So who will step up on the D side?  I have a list of 38 names.  Many of the other 37 won’t run.  Some might explore it, then opt against such an arduous campaign.  A handful will get into the race, I would estimate no more than four or five serious candidates in addition to former Secretary of State Clinton. In short, a small field by modern standards. 

There will be a challenger from the Far Left (right this way Senator Sanders), a slot for a conservative Democrat who wants to over-correct based on one interpretation of the 2014 election results (greetings Senator Manchin), a couple of candidates who want to be in the mix because a) they believe they have a compelling story to tell and b) Hillary might stumble…let’s just put in former Senator Webb and current Governor Martin O’Malley in this category….for now.  The former is an interesting possibility, given his populist inclinations and swing state geographic base.   Potentially very interesting.  O’Malley was dinged, probably not irreparably, based on last week’s election outcomes in Maryland…but he remains a decided long-shot.

Oh yes, and let us not forget Vice President Joe Biden.  First, I don’t believe he will run again.   He had two decent opportunities. I recall his 1988 campaign vividly and his 2008 effort recently.  Second, he is a fine public servant but he is not the future of the Democratic Party.  

The progressive wing will long for Senator Elizabeth Warren, some of the unreconstructed will want the ageless Jerry Brown to saddle up once more, Rahm may practice speeches in his bathroom mirror, and Senator Booker will keep his calendar open for 2024.

Me? I will probably spend the Holidays pondering the possibility of a Cuomo, the reemergence of Feingold or Dean, the potential of Gillibrand, or if John Cusack is ready to take a break from this acting nonsense and get into politics in a serious way.   

That said, I will most likely be wearing a Clinton button on 12/31/2015…just like many of you will too. 

But who knows? 

In any event, it is all coming sooner than you think.  The calendar demands it.  Beware those who jump in late, history has not been kind to them.

With that in mind…up next…a look at the Republicans.  And yes, they will probably go Establishment again in 2016, in case you were wondering.

Stay tuned, as more will follow.

Road to the White House 2016: Manilow, Mistakes and Mandates

Déjà Vu

Could you be the dream that I once knew
Is it you
Déjà Vu
Could you be the dream that might come true
Shining through
I keep remembering me
I keep remembering you

Déjà Vu

            - Lyrics by Isaac Hayes and Adrienne Anderson. Performed by Dionne Warwick. Produced by B. Manilow

What concerns me most about the most recent, incarnation of the Hillary Clinton for President movement is captured succinctly by the name of the highly visible Super PAC extolling her virtues, Ready for Hillary.

It all feels oddly familiar.  A campaign, or in this case, a proto-campaign, that seems more focused on the candidate than on what she or he might deliver.

Of course this is a grotesquely unfair criticism.  Hillary Clinton is not a candidate, at least not yet. 

The problem is her past.  In 2007 - 2008, she ran largely on a solid resume and the perceived strength of her brand.  She trusted that those elements, along with a top-flight campaign team and oodles of ready money, would be sufficient to clinch a first ballot nomination.

Depending on your perspective, a tragic or a fortunate (and possibly hilarious) thing happened next.  Some member or members of her quite well-paid campaign team - reportedly - forgot how delegates are allocated in Democratic primaries and caucuses.  This is important as delegates ultimately determine who receives the nomination.  They were playing for high stakes and some key person or people (who shall not be named here) couldn't be bothered to thumb through a rulebook.  Figuratively speaking, of course. At least that is how the story was covered.  In the fog of the fight, who knows where the truth resides?

She did catch a run of bad luck.  The American electorate was looking for a clean break from the Bush years…and her candidacy represented not so much a fresh start but a risorgimento of the previous Administration, one that still elicited mixed emotions, even from a fair number of Democrats.

Enter then-Senator Barack Obama and the Politics of Change.  He seized a moment, in part because he had a theme larger than himself – while still amplifying his biography – and because voters trusted that he would deliver on that promise.

Even then-Governor Clinton knew, in 1992, that he needed something beyond his record.  His campaign famously employed a compelling messaging troika: “Change versus more of the same,” “It’s the economy stupid,” and “Don’t forget health care.”

Fast forward to the present day.   Some heavy-hitting Clinton backers decide to launch a vehicle promoting Hillary Clinton as a potential presidential candidate.   Instead of linking it something actual voters care about or even a broad theme that suggests the outlines of a vision, they opt for “Ready for Hillary.”

When I first head that name, I thought: Are they criticizing voters for, presumably, not being ready for Hillary in 2008? Are they saying, in so many words, you were children but now it’s time to grow up?  Are they mocking us?  Hardly the inspirational stuff of “Yes We Can.”  More akin to “Why Didn’t You Before?”

I know, I know.  A Super PAC is not a presidential campaign.  But if you look at the roster of folks associated with Ready for Hillary, it is enough to give one pause.  If she runs, will she be a better candidate this time around?  Will she make the campaign about something larger than her admittedly impressive credentials?  How will she Connect?     

Or will we see an imitation of Clinton 2008?  She could probably get away with it, minus the ridiculous unforced errors, at least in the Democratic nominating process.  Democrats are so concerned about locking in the accomplishments of the Obama Administration, they want as close to a sure-fire winner as possible.  There is a measure of risk aversion and, on paper, Hillary Clinton offers the best path to 270 electoral votes…. possibly even a mandate in 2016, depending on how the next two years shape up.

In any event, I hope that the brain trust advising Team Hillary is smart enough to learn from the past, but not dwell in it.  

Stay tuned, as more will follow.