Some Progressives in the Democratic Party appear to have declared war on Moderates within their own party.  While there are numerous examples from several sources, here’s a representative soundbite from the second debate:

We’re not going to solve the urgent problems that we face with small ideas and spinelessness. We’re going to solve them by being the Democratic Party of big, structural change.

– Elizabeth Warren, July 31, 2019

I genuinely like Warren.  I disagree with several of her ideas but there’s no question that she’s whip-smart.  I most certainly respect the passion that she and her Progressive compatriots bring to the party.  To be sure, many progressive goals are undeniably admirable.  I’d love to provide free healthcare for everyone.  I’d love to make a free college education available to every American citizen.  I’d love to offer free childcare to anyone who wants it.  I’d love to see automatic weapons used only by soldiers in war zones.  I’d love to eliminate all carbon emissions overnight.

I’d also love to be starring in a new Sondheim/Sorkin musical on Broadway after winning a huge lottery payout while dating Emma Stone.

News Flash:  Life ain’t a Disney cartoon.  The real world manifests no response whatsoever to wishes made upon a self-luminous spheroid of thermonuclear plasma.

Months ago, I suggested that the Progressive Agenda was a path to failure in 2020 and I haven’t changed my mind.  In retrospect, however, I don’t think I sufficiently made an argument for the moderate alternative.

To be clear:  Being a moderate is not a capitulation to anything.

While I personally place myself a little left of the political center, my reasons do not include the lack of a spine to move further to my left.  My positions on the numerous issues confronting our country are the result of careful thought and considerable research.  They acknowledge that we somehow need to pay for all the things that we want.  They reflect an acceptance of economic, political, and social realities.  They take into account that there are other smart and patriotic citizens of this country who are good people despite having vastly different opinions than mine.

Are there flaws in my positions?  Of course there are.  Everything needs to be seriously debated by sane, intelligent people with opposing viewpoints.  As a nation, we will seldom agree on the “perfect” solution to anything.  I sincerely believe, however, that we can often agree on a “decent” solution.  While few would likely be ecstatic with the final outcomes, I’m convinced that solutions exist for most problems that the vast majority of people can accept.  It’s called compromise.  It is neither a dirty word nor a “small idea”.

I remain absolutely convinced that the Democratic path to Electoral victory in 2020 is via a moderate platform.  I am equally convinced that it is the right platform.

Please bear with me while I explain why a contribution to the Senate campaign of Amy McGrath is my personal response to yet another wave of mass shootings in our country.

I have no desire to echo the hollow platitudes that have been offered by many of our political leaders.  I won’t concentrate for now on the plethora of Trump’s follies, faults, and failures.  I feel no compulsion to proselytize on the false flag concept that video games are somehow to blame.  I’ve already offered my brief perspective on the larger issue of gun control.

The campaign contribution I make today is my personal statement of disgust with Mitch McConnell – the current occupant of the Kentucky Senate seat for which Amy McGrath is running.

On the surface, of course, a political donation is a massively inadequate response to murder.  Unfortunately, money is the language of politics and it might be the only thing that demands attention from our presumed leaders.  Since I have no delusions that my meager contribution will swing the Senate race, I will use this forum to humbly suggest that others join me.

As the Senate Majority Leader, McConnell controls what legislation gets to Senate floor.  The House sent a common-sense bill to the Senate months ago with respect to universal background checks for gun purchases.  Although it represents a baby step at best, McConnell has single-handedly blocked it from even being considered in the Senate.  Why?  The NRA doesn’t like the bill and McConnell has received over $1.2 million in contributions from the NRA.  It’s that simple.  The Senate will not even be allowed to debate and vote on any meaningful gun-related legislation while McConnell is in office.  He thus needs to lose that office.

Note that there are numerous other reasons why McConnell needs to be defeated.  To list just a few:

• McConnell has unilaterally blocked over 200 pieces of legislation passed by the House, not even allowing them to be debated in the Senate.  Many of these are bills that enjoy overwhelming popular support and include legislation to protect our elections from foreign interference, guarantee protections for people with pre-existing health conditions, limit dark money in politics, and support net neutrality.
• McConnell blocked any consideration of Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, piously claiming that the seat should be filled by the President to be elected a full year hence.  However, McConnell gleefully acknowledged later that he would push through a last-minute nominee if a similar situation arose for a Trump nominee.
• A few months ago, U.S. News & World Report published state rankings in numerous arenas.  Kentucky’s overall ranking was 40^th.  Why would anyone in that state want to retain their current leaders if they can’t do better than that?

Conversely, there are numerous reasons to support McGrath.

When McGrath ran for a House seat in 2018, I wrote then that I wanted her in Congress.  While I had statistical reservations about her electability in that race, I did note her remarkable qualifications for political office:

Amy McGrath (D) is a retired Marine Lieutenant Colonel who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  She was the first female Marine to fly combat missions in an F/A-18.  She is a graduate of the Naval Academy and has a master’s in international and global security studies.  She has taught at the Naval Academy, served as the Pentagon’s Marine liaison to the State Department, and worked as a Congressional foreign affairs advisor.  Her father is a high school teacher; her mother is a doctor; she is the mother of three.  As one proof of her ability to work across the aisle, her husband (a retired Navy officer) is a life-long registered Republican.  McGrath published a 32-page economic plan with a surprising level of detail for a House race.  While understandably focused on her Kentucky district’s specific needs, it’s a template for a reasonable, practical, non-partisan approach to government.

In 2018, I chose to contribute elsewhere in a best-effort to help facilitate a Democratic takeover of the House.  McGrath did indeed lose the election in her ruby red KY-06 district, but she came within 3% – which was closer than I’d expected.  I’ll dive deeper into the 2020 math at a later date, but my initial analysis says that McGrath has a decent chance of winning the Senate race.  That’s more than enough for me.  I still want Amy McGrath in Congress.

To be clear, it will not be at all easy to unseat a five-term incumbent Senator in a Presidential election year in a red state that hasn’t elected a Democratic Senator this century.  A win here is a stretch – but it is within reach.  The race is more than worthy of national attention and it is my chosen means of honoring the recent lives lost to senseless gun violence.

Contribute to Amy McGrath via ActBlue.

The first set of Democratic debates were gigantic wastes of time and I fear that the second set may be yet another edition of Hunger Games meets Keystone Cops.  However, I thought I’d offer a few last-minute ideas that could make the upcoming debates at least slightly more useful.

To begin with, if I was moderating the debates, I’d require the candidates to spend the first half hour in a very structured format.  I still rather like my Chorus Line idea, but I’d settle for letting the candidates know in advance that both nights will start with these same two questions:

1. Issues:  For each candidate, left to right:  In no more than two minutes, list no more than your top three issues, how you’ll address them, at what cost, and with what revenue sources.  Here’s your uninterrupted opportunity to tell voters your priorities and convince them to go to your website to read the details of your brilliant policy proposals.  Your microphone will be cut off at the two minute mark.  If another candidate interrupts you, we will take that time away from them and give it to you.  If you waste your allotted time giving a stump speech or if you don’t address the related monetary components, note that we will call you out on it and then move on.
2. Electoral College:  For each candidate, right to left:   While we know you’re laser-focused on winning the Democratic nomination, we also know that’s not the endgame.  In 60 seconds or less, list the swing states you’ll specifically target in the general election and how you intend to win them.  Note that if you tell us that you plan to win all of them, we are going to stop while everyone takes a moment to laugh at you.  If you don’t name enough states to produce the necessary 270 Electoral votes, you will be asked to leave the stage.
   

The remainder of the debate would have a more free-form structure but would stay issue-oriented.  To a large extent, I’d be content here to see how the candidates think on their feet defending their positions.  There are numerous valid topics that can be addressed and there are some distinct policy differences between the candidates that can be reasonably explored.  The CNN moderators are good enough to be able to pick the topics in real-time each night based on the various positions and policies stated in the first half hour.  The moderators should be given complete freedom to drive and direct the debate.  We can argue about fairness later, but every circus needs a ringmaster.

For the candidates, here’s my advice:

• Attack Trump, not each other.  Feel free to tell us why your background, your resume, and your record makes you the best candidate to take on Trump.  Feel free to tell us why your policy positions and/or personal story are better than any of the other Democratic candidates to win over swing voters.  I know many of you think you’re fighting for the soul of the Democratic party.  I couldn’t care less.  In the general election, one of you will be fighting for the soul of America.  Please focus there.
• Keep it real.  Most of you aren’t idiots.  You know that some of your ideas will never get any bipartisan support and it’s fine to have some positions that are mostly intended to drive a conversation.  However, if you’re elected, you will need to actually govern within a divided government.  I don’t expect you to focus on leadership in a debate format but it’d be nice if you could at least demonstrate some ability to lead and not just pontificate.  At the very least, could your website highlight at least one idea that doesn’t so obviously pander to the far left?  I know you may be counting on progressive activists to help you win the nomination.  I get it.  But, again, remember that the goal for most of us is to win in November 2020.
• Keep it recent.  There are plenty of current issues to address.  Every time you bring up another candidate’s position or vote that is not from this century, I swear I will send that candidate a campaign donation.
• Don’t be a dud.  You can be serious without being seriously dull.  Be friendly.  Remember to smile but please don’t look like you’re taking a prom picture.  Don’t scream and don’t preach.  If you show just a touch of humor, voters will be more inclined to like you.  Yes, part of this is a popularity contest.  Live with it.
• Forget your attack sound bites.  I know how hard you’re been practicing the zingers that will absolutely destroy another candidate, bring the audience to it’s feet, and propel you to victory.  Yeah, no.  Please ignore your advisors and your speech writers.  None of you are Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama.  You’re just not good enough to properly deliver a line at the right time without it sounding badly rehearsed.  The media is going to find their own debate excerpts and they’re not going to be the ones you want them to be.  Instead of trying to find an opening for your witty, scripted remark, concentrate on not saying something incredibly stupid.
• Don’t over-prepare.  Frankly, if you can’t handle anything thrown at you by now, you have no business being on the debate stage.  Instead, …
• Get some sleep and remember you’re going to be on TV.  Seriously.  You’re interviewing for the Presidency and you need to look the part.  Don’t repeat Nixon’s debate mistakes from six decades ago.  Going in, Nixon had a clear edge in experience and gravitas.  However, on TV, Kennedy looked confident and engaged while Nixon looked like he’d just been released from a POW camp.  Game Kennedy.

Then again, maybe I’ll just accept reality and host that Bourbon Primary.

I recently came across a video of “I Hope I Get It” from A Chorus Line, sung by a large group of dancers, both young and old, as they audition for a job.  Each is under immense pressure to perform on-demand; only a few will survive the cuts; each needs to get noticed but must also fit in.  Sound familiar?

In fact, I think this should be the format for the next Democratic debate.  It would be just as enlightening as the first one but would be profoundly more entertaining.  Imagine the Nielsen ratings of a forum where Sanders attempts a double pirouette… where Warren tap dances across the stage… where the whole Democratic field forms a kick line.  I dare any network to program against it.

On a related note, I also read a recent article about candidate walk-out music – the song that’s played as a candidate enters an event stage.  While the songs can often change during the course of a campaign, here are a few representative examples:  Biden uses “We Take Care of Our Own“; Sanders uses “Power to the People“; Harris uses “Work That“; Warren uses “9 to 5“;  Trump uses “God Bless the USA”.  Most choices are obvious, a few are clever, and none are illuminating.

Using A Chorus Line as the thematic foundation, I decided to give some thought to more informative walk-on songs for a few of the candidates… culled only from well-known musicals.

Why, you ask?  Wouldn’t a Venn diagram of people with relevant interests show an intersection awfully close to a null set?  Yep.  Didn’t I just post a somewhat analogous candidate-to-bourbon list?  Yep.  But I’ve had a crappy week and this was a pleasant distraction from all sorts of realities.  And, well, it’s my blog.

So, here are my choices, complete with video links and lyric excerpts:

Joe Biden:  “Don’t Rain on My Parade” from Funny Girl.  Who the hell are all these other people?

Don’t tell me not to fly
I’ve simply got to
If someone takes a spill
It’s me and not you
Who told you you’re allowed
To rain on my parade

Bernie Sanders: “I’m Still Here” from Company.  Yes, Bernie.  We know.

Good times and bum times
I’ve seen them all and my dear
I’m still here
Plush velvet sometimes
Sometimes just pretzels and beer
But I’m here

Amy Klobuchar:  “Mister Cellophane” from Chicago.  This may be just a tad too on the nose.

Cellophane, Mister Cellophane
Should have been my name
Mister Cellophane
‘Cause you can look right through me
Walk right by me
And never know I’m there

Pete Buttigieg:   “I Believe in You” from How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying.  Give this a couple of minutes.  The star will eventually sing a love song to himself but the number opens with a chorus of his peers trying to figure out how to stop him.  And, hey, doesn’t Pete look just a bit like Robert Morse?

You have the cool, clear
Eyes of a seeker of wisdom and truth
Yet there’s that upturned chin
And that grin of impetuous youth
Oh, I believe in you
I believe in you

Kamala Harris:  “On My Own” from Les Misérables.  Stay with me here.  Imagine that the guy she’s singing about is a typical Democratic voter in a middle-America swing state.  And note that the singer doesn’t survive to the finale.

I love him, but every day I’m learning
All my life, I’ve only been pretending
Without me, his world will go on turning
A world that’s full of happiness
That I have never known
I love him, I love him, I love him
But only on my own

Elizabeth Warren:   “We’re In the Money” from Gold Diggers of 1933 and 42^nd Street.  The perfect song for the candidate who hasn’t seen a spending program she doesn’t like.

We’re in the money, come on, my honey
Let’s lend it, spend it, send it rolling along

Beto O’Rourke & Julián Castro:  “Agony” from Into the Woods.  This is a duet with two princes lamenting their lack of progress toward their respective goals, even though each is absolutely perfect and obviously deserving.

Agony, beyond power of speech
When the one thing you want
Is the only thing out of your reach

Marianne Williamson & Andrew Yang:  “If They Could See Me Now” from Sweet Charity.  These folks always knew they’d be going home alone.  They’re really kind of surprised to still be at the party.

All I can say is “Wow!”
Hey, look at where I am
Tonight I landed, pow!
Right in a pot of jam
What a setup, holy cow!
They’d never believe it
If my friends could see me now

Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, & Michael Bennet:  “It’s A Hard Knock Life” from Annie.  The orphan Senators get a group number.

‘Steada treated, we get tricked
‘Steada kisses, we get kicked
It’s a hard-knock life

All Other Democrats:  “Who Am I Anyway?” from A Chorus Line.  Technically, this isn’t a song.  It’s just a short coda for “I Hope I Get It”.  Seems appropriate on so many levels.

Who am I anyway?
Am I my resume?
That is a picture of a person I don’t know
What does he want from me?
What should I try to be?
So many faces all around, and here we go
I need this job, oh God, I need this show

Howard Schultz:  “Be A Clown” from The Pirate.  I’ll go out on a limb here and call this choice self-explanatory.

If you become a farmer you’ve the weather to buck
If you become a gambler you’ll be stuck with your luck
But Jack you’ll never lack if you can quack like a duck
Be a clown, be a clown, be a clown

Donald Trump:  “Razzle Dazzle” from Chicago.  Go ahead.  Tell me this isn’t a great choice.

Give ’em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather ’em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?
What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you’re just disgusting?
Razzle dazzle ’em
And they’ll never catch wise

If anyone believes that the Democratic nomination process will select the person most likely to defeat Trump in 2020, please contact me.  I own this bridge in Brooklyn that I’d like to discuss with you.

We’re still 12 months away from the 2020 Democratic convention and 16 months away from the presidential election.  So much will change in the meantime that it’s impossible to take seriously any poll that attempts to predict how the very crowded race for the Democratic nod will end.  For reference, in the crowded race for the 2016 Republican nomination, the average order of candidates in national polls conducted 16 months before that general election was Bush, Rubio, Walker, Huckabee, Carson, Paul, Cruz, Christie, … and then Trump.

Unfortunately, while the upcoming year will successfully select some Democrat to face Trump in 2020, the process isn’t exactly optimal.  Said another way:  Drawing straws would produce an equally intelligent result.

First, here’s a greatly simplified summary of the process:

Delegates to the Democratic National Convention in July of 2020 will select the party’s nominee.  Delegates will come in two flavors:

1. Elected delegates.  Each state will use their primary or caucus votes to allocate the state’s assigned delegates to the corresponding candidates.
2. Superdelegates.  Elected officeholders, party insiders, former Presidents, etc. will vote however they wish.

Since the influence of superdelegates in 2016 caused some heartburn, the first round of voting this time around will include only the elected delegates.  Unfortunately, given the massive number of candidates, it is more than possible that no candidate will win an initial majority.  In subsequent rounds of voting, not only will the superdelegates be able to vote but the elected delegates will then be free to vote for whomever they wish.  Rounds of voting will continue until someone gets a majority.  Yeah.  Won’t that be fun?  While a contested convention would make for great television, it could well produce a fatally wounded nominee.

Next, there’s the order of the Democratic primaries and caucuses:

Iowa and New Hampshire will receive a ridiculous amount of attention and will be granted a undeserved level of importance as the first-in-the-nation caucus and primary.  Neither state is exactly a microcosm of America and, together, the two states account for less than 3% of the Democratic delegates and a whopping 10 Electoral votes.  However, since both states are at least somewhat in-play in the general election, I’ll grudgingly accept the fact that someone has to go first.  Nevada goes third for another 1% of the delegates.  Woo.  But, again, the state is marginally in-play in the general election.  So fine.

However, the fourth state to weigh in is South Carolina.  Seriously?  Frankly, I don’t give a dead palmetto what South Carolina Democrats think.  Am I being a bit harsh?  Nope, not at all.  I’m sure they’re nice people.  However, given the Electoral College structure, Democratic voters in South Carolina DO NOT MATTER in the general election.  No Democrat is going to win the state in 2020.  If South Carolina Democrats want a say in Democratic politics, they should first focus on becoming a swing state.

After the first four states, we come to Super Tuesday on March 3, when a large number of states will hold their primaries.  As with South Carolina, I don’t care at all what Democrats in Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah think.  These are all safe Republican states but will jointly account for another 6% of the Democratic delegates.  On the flip side, I also don’t much care what Democrats in California, Massachusetts, and Vermont think.  Each are Safe Democratic states which account for about 14% of the Democratic delegates.  Yeah, sure, the Democratic candidate will need money from these states so they should have a voice.  However, none of these states are at risk in 2020.  As I’ve noted before, there is zero difference between the Democrat getting 90% or 51% of the popular vote in California.  In both cases, the candidate gets all 55 of California’s Electoral votes in the general election.

It gets worse.

By the time Democrats in the swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania get to weigh in with about 9% of the Democratic delegates, well over half of the delegates will have already been elected.  The candidates that could do best in these states could well have been forced out of the race even before these states get to vote.  Thus, while it’s doubtful that any Democrat could win the general election without the middle-America states, the Democratic nominating process goes out of its way to marginalize their input into the selection of the nominee.  Smart move, huh?

For what it’s worth, I live in Texas.  While my state is technically a “Lean R” state, there is no current Democratic candidate that can win Texas in the 2020 general election.  It’s just not going to happen.  Thus, my primary vote doesn’t really matter either.

Only about 18% of the Democratic delegates to the convention represent true toss-up states. Another 9% represent the states that lean Democratic but are by no means guaranteed.  Thus, almost 3/4 of the elected delegates will come from states that either no Democrat can win or that any Democrat can win.  Only 27% of the votes to elect the Democratic nominee will come from states that are actually important to winning the general election – and most of those votes get cast late in the nomination process.

Perhaps I’m reading the wrong news feeds, but I don’t see anyone in the DNC that’s concerned about this.  Above all else, the Democratic nominee must be able to win the general election.

What’s the point otherwise?

An open letter to the Democratic Presidential Candidates:

Congratulations!  Your stellar debate performances were just what the voters needed.  You perfectly set the tone for the Democratic primary season.

You enlightened the general populace on numerous important issues of our time and reminded everyone why you should be elected in 2020.  Your serious preparation for the debate was quite obvious.  Voters now have a crystal clear understanding of Democratic priorities and of the absolute need to deny Trump a second term.

You ever so wisely chose to ignore Ronald Reagan’s dated “Eleventh Commandment” to not speak ill of members of your own party.  You realized that your campaign is the only thing that matters and that you are the only Democrat who could possibly defeat Trump.  However, on the off chance that you don’t win the nomination, it’s not a big deal.  No one is recording what you say to use it later against the eventual Democratic nominee.

At the very least, you are successfully elevating your profile for future campaigns, raising your asking price for speaking engagements, and/or increasing your book sales.  Good for you!  It’s not like this election really matters, anyway.

To those of you who are playing the race card against your fellow Democrats:  Wow.  What a brilliant move.  Trump’s policies are much better than those of your current opponents and Trump would certainly do more than anyone other than you to protect the rights of minorities.

To those of you who are older than average:  You are actually quite good at getting a whole lot of people off your lawn.  You are countering the stereotype of the elder politician by showing yourself to be vital and engaged with a wry, self-deprecating sense of humor.  You have calmly parried the jabs that everyone knew were coming.  You don’t seem tired or irritated or out of touch.  Not at all.

To those of you who are less old:  You have rightly assumed that cockiness and arrogance are the qualities that will work best to attract swing voters.  Clever how you’re focusing on issues that the older candidates faced in the ’70s.  School busing is the perfect cornerstone issue for your campaign.  The old folks can’t exactly ask why you weren’t front and center on that issue when you were in the third grade, now can they?

To those of you who have struggled to get traction:  Your fortune-cookie soundbites don’t sound at all rehearsed.  Best of all, your use of Spanish purely to impress voters perfectly channels the guys who speak Klingon to impress girls.  That always works!

For those of you who are hardcore progressives: Sure, your calls to spend truckloads of money we don’t have on every social program imaginable might not play well in ten years – you know, when a quarter of the U.S. budget will be dedicated to paying the interest on our national debt.  You’re just doing what you need to do now to win.  Ten years is enough time to get you through two terms and your grandchildren will understand.

From a political standpoint, you are each proving how fully you comprehend the details of the Electoral College.  You are largely ignoring the concerns of voters in swing states since you don’t really need them.  Your laser-focus on winning the Democratic nomination is certainly the correct approach and the sole strategy for now must be to pander to your base.  Sure, you won’t get any additional Electoral votes by padding your margins in those states where Democrats were going to win anyway.  However, that padding might help you win the popular vote even if you lose the Electoral College.  As we proved in 2016, a moral victory is just as significant as a real one!

As a group, y’all are doing a fine job and I am so looking forward to the next debate.  Who doesn’t like a circus?

As a political junkie who enjoys a good whiskey, perhaps it was inevitable that I’d see a few parallels.  Both bourbons and the 2020 Presidential candidates appeal to different people for different reasons and they share some remarkably similar characteristics.  The pairings below are mine, but many of the notes paraphrase actual published reviews.

• Joe Biden:  Pappy Van Winkle.  The favorite bourbon in most polls.  While it is an exceptional bourbon, its current popularity is at least partially due to relentless media attention.
• Bernie Sanders:  Old Crow.  The bourbon that alcoholics drink.  It’s been around forever and was a favorite of Ulysses S. Grant (who went to school with Sanders).
• Elizabeth Warren:  Four Roses.  A favorite of bourbon aficionados.  To the casual drinker, though, it’s pretty rough with zero subtlety.  It’s not a bourbon that will win over many beer drinkers.
• Pete Buttigieg:  Angel’s Envy.  A young but notable bourbon.  It has great marketing and demonstrates some bite without bitterness.  However, it’s a tad light, it lacks a strong finish, and it’s seldom anyone’s first choice.
• Amy Klobuchar:  Baker’s.  A solid bourbon.  It’s good, but it’s just not stunning.
• Kamala Harris:  Alibi.  A blended whiskey.  Not bad at all, but it has a bit of a medicinal quality and is best used in a cocktail.
• Kirsten Gillibrand:  Bulleit.  A respectable utility bourbon.  It’s just not unique enough to stand out in a crowd.
• Cory Booker:  Wild Turkey.  A serviceable bourbon.  It tries just a bit too hard to be more than it is.  [For obvious reasons, I really wanted to use Booker’s bourbon here.  Unfortunately, that bourbon is considerably better than the candidate.]
• Beto O’Rourke:  Balcones.  A young, brash whiskey from Texas.  It benefited from some great press, but it’s still not a player on the national scene.  With strong notes of vanilla and a sour finish, it’s kind of old news even in Texas.
• Julian Castro:  Southern Comfort.  People think it’s a whiskey but it’s really not.  It’s an explicit ingredient in a Scarlett O’Hara cocktail and you can thus insert your own “Gone with the Wind” pun here.
• Bill de Blasio:  Kentucky Tavern.  The bourbon you buy for the party you don’t want to attend.  People know it, but no one likes it.
• Bennett, Bullock, Hickenlooper, Inslee:  Wyoming Whiskey.  A whiskey with an identity problem.  While it’s locally popular and actually decent, it’s very hard to find and is largely unknown outside of its home state.
• Delaney, Gabbard, Gravel, Ryan, Swalwell, Yang:  Ezra Brooks.  A whiskey with the finish of cardboard.  Very few have heard of it; those who have aren’t fans.
• Howard Schultz:  Bourbon Barrel Coffee.  Made from coffee beans aged in bourbon barrels.  Not bourbon.  Not alcohol.  Not even good coffee.
• Donald Trump:  Rebel Yell.  The poster child of bottom-shelf bourbons.  However, it does have quite a few rabid, coprophagous fans.

I propose that a Bourbon Primary be held during each of the upcoming debates.  Blind votes would be cast on the participating whiskeys above to see which corresponding candidate wins.  It would easily be as accurate as any current 2020 poll and it could make the debates a whole lot more fun.  Best of all, if a preferred candidate doesn’t win, no one will give a damn.