Parenthetical Politics

(Political Ramblings from a Little Left of Center)

2020 Electoral Strategies

Posted on by admin

Let’s talk 2020.  I need to contemplate the paradise of a Trump-free future for just a little while.

I said back in August that it was too early to talk about the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates… and it’s still too early.  However, since everyone with a pulse is starting to announce, it does seems appropriate to discuss some candidates in the context of their possible campaign strategies.  While the actual ticket is obviously important, it needs to be able to execute an Electoral College strategy that makes sense.

So, yeah, this is a very long post.  Believe it or not, my first draft was WAY longer and this is the edited version.

Setting the Stage

In a previous post, I defined the 2020 Electoral Landscape as I see it, providing a baseline to discuss possible Democratic strategies to elect the next President.  (For the moment, I’m just going to ignore the possible impact of a strong third-party candidate since Howard Schultz is already imploding.)

Unfortunately for American democracy, my analysis says that 32 states (plus DC) are pretty much “in the bag” for one party or the other from a 2020 Electoral standpoint.   Thus, the strategies herein will concentrate mostly on the 18 states where the outcome is not predetermined.

Because of the way the Electoral College works, the Democratic ticket does NOT need to:

  • … overly excite voters in the “Safe D” states.  Getting more than 50%+1 of any state’s popular vote is useless.
  • … dedicate any resources in the “Safe R” states.  If there’s no reasonable path to 50%+1, time and money are best spent elsewhere.
  • … win all 18 in-play states.  Spreading limited resources too thin would be disastrous.

Bernie Sanders said this week that the campaign was “not only about defeating Donald Trump.”  He’s just wrong.  That must be the overriding goal and it requires 270 Electoral votes.  NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

Despite the name of this blog, I’m largely putting politics aside for this analysis.  Given the Republican opponent, the bar for a “better” Democrat is pretty damn low.  Democrats need someone who is sane and intelligent with an easy sense of humor and an ability to communicate well.  While he or she can’t piss off the Democratic base and will need to raise a massive amount of money, the candidate doesn’t necessarily need to pander to anyone, either.  At the moment, though, this isn’t about politics or policy; it’s about numbers.

The Trump Strategy

From a Republican strategy standpoint, my working assumption is more of the same from TrumpLand.  Trump did throw conventional wisdom out of the proverbial window in 2016 and it is certainly possible that he could bend reality yet again in 2020.  However, I give that possibility a low probability since Trump has shown little inclination to change his basic approach over the past two years.  It will be Trump and more Trump from the GOP.  The Republican party’s faith in Trump will either propel them to a second Presidential term or it will be their Achilles’ heel.  We’ll see.

It is important to note that only two presidents elected since the Great Depression have lost a second bid – Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush.  Regardless of strategy, an incumbent President has a major advantage – even if his name is Donald Trump.

Possible Cornerstone Democratic Strategies

Below are a few possible ways, in no particular order, that the more flexible Democrats can combat a Trump-focused Republican strategy.  Since we assume 182 “D” Electoral votes are a given, Democrats need a strategy to get 88 more.  While any of these strategies could work under perfect conditions, some of them stand a better chance of success than others.  The candidates listed with each strategy are preliminary and are also in no particular order.  Some candidates may well be able to execute multiple approaches, but it’s important to focus on one cornerstone strategy rather than just conduct a random walk through the states.  See 2016.

The Progressive Left Strategy

Whether or not the “progressive” agenda is a good thing is completely beside the point (although that’ll be a future blog topic).  From a numbers perspective, this quite possible Democratic strategy would take a very hard road.  Democrats need to give Republicans and Independents a reason to either vote for the Democrat or to at least stay home on election day.  While far-left progressives can certainly raise money and fire up that wing of the party, they will also fire up Republicans.  This strategy thus provides no obvious advantage in the swing states.

A strong progressive Democrat would win by huge margins in states they were going to win anyway, they’d likely win the popular vote, and they’d lose the Electoral College.  Been there; done that; quite literally have the t-shirt.  Can we please try to win this time?

Candidates include:  Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg

The Old White Establishment Male Strategy

This approach would feature a centrist establishment politician that may not inspire anyone but probably doesn’t turn anyone off, either.  This strategy may be boring, but it can work.  There are two key components.  First nail down all of the “Lean D” states, adding 51 Electoral votes.  Second, concentrate on just enough of the true “Toss-Up” states to win – with the selection of states dependent on the candidate’s strengths.  For example, a combination of Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Iowa provides another 37 Electoral votes – which gives this candidate exactly enough to win.

Candidates include:  Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Michael Bennett, John Hickenlooper, Bob Casey, Tim Kaine, Steve Bullock

The Young Turk Strategy

This strategy would largely be an attempt to recreate the 2008 Obama campaign.  Unfortunately, that strategy requires a millennial version of Barack Obama.  No one has yet to claim that mantle and I don’t yet see anyone that can even come close in political, personal, and policy skills.  Furthermore, while millennials may soon be the largest generation in the electorate, it’s unlikely that they will soon have any major impact.  They just don’t vote.  It’s highly unlikely that this strategy can win enough swing states to win the election.

Candidates include:  Beto O’Rourke, Julián Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Kennedy

The Minority Senator Strategy

I don’t really know what to call this strategy since I’m making it up to fit a few candidates that don’t fit elsewhere.  While they are each very different people, each is a middle-aged Senator from a “Safe D” state and none of them are white males.  These folks are neither progressive enough to fire up that wing nor centrist enough to have much appeal beyond traditional Democrats.  While any of these pretty smart politicians could win the primary if they get the right breaks, there’s just not a clear path for any of them to win the election since their appeal in the swing states is minimal.  Again, see 2016.

Candidates include:  Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker

The Middle America Strategy

Despite the fact that progressives are getting most of the press, Democrats won the 2018 mid-terms by capturing the suburbs and turning the Midwest back their way.  Centrists won the day – particularly centrists that appealed to working middle-class Americans.  If Democrats can repeat this 2018 strategy in 2020, they can win.

While there are numerous states where this strategy can play, the easiest targets would be the (roughly) Great Lakes states that have traditionally been Democratic.  Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Iowa add 62 Electoral votes.  The ticket can additionally target the 27 Electoral votes in Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia for the win.  With the right candidates, the ticket could also target Nevada, Maine, New Hampshire, or Ohio to pad the Electoral margin.

Candidates include:  Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, John Delaney, Steve Bullock

The Dixie Strategy

I’m mentioning this only since it’s been proposed by some Democratic pundits.  The pitch is that the right Democrat could win the South, including Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Texas.  Wow.  Good luck with that.  This is such a crappy idea that I won’t even bother to run the numbers.

Candidates include:  Stacey Abrams, Beto O’Rourke, Julián Castro

The Military Strategy

This strategy highlights the tenuous grasp that Trump has on diplomacy and the usage of the military.  A retired U.S. Military Flag Officer would provide an awesome counterpoint (and I’d personally love to see a foreign policy debate between Trump and someone who has actually lived foreign policy).  Veterans make up 13 percent of the voting population and enjoy a high voter turnout.  In the 2016 presidential election, veterans had a 6% higher turnout than non-veterans and the rate is even higher in several 2020 swing states.

While the Trump administration originally had some high-ranking military players on-board with bipartisan appeal (H.R. McMaster, John Kelly, James Mattis), they’re all gone.  There’s really no one left to provide cover.  Additionally, the recent declaration of a money grab from military construction projects for a useless wall only adds ammunition to this strategy.

This candidate could lay claim to Virginia, New Mexico, Maine, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Colorado, and Texas to provide the necessary 88 Electoral votes.  Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia would also be in play.  Additionally, this candidate could inherit the advantages of the Old White Establishment Male Strategy described above.

Candidates include:  Bill McRaven, John Allen, James Stavridis, Stanley McChrystal, David Petraeus, Colin Powell

The Dark-Horse Strategy

This is the “fight fire with fire” strategy – featuring a celebrity and/or business personality to take on Trump in his own arena.  This is obviously a candidate-specific strategy as each would bring their own positives and negatives.  The approach is certainly quite risky and has no common Electoral math to support it.  Thus, for my purposes, it’s off the table.

Candidates include:  Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, Dwayne Johnson, Mark Cuban, Michael Bloomberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Bob Iger

Supporting Democratic Strategies

While one of the above strategies will likely drive Democrats in 2020, the supporting strategies are quite important as well.

The VP Strategy

Given the Trump dynamic, the Vice Presidential race is even more unimportant than usual.  However, while no one will give a second thought to Pence, the Democratic VP nominee could be useful.  I suggest that Democrats retreat to “old school” VP selection criteria, in order of importance:

  1. Be perceived as being qualified to be President.
  2. Do no harm.
  3. Balance the top of the ticket by executing a second cornerstone strategy as best as possible from the #2 spot.
  4. Carry your in-play home state.

Note that Pence is actually a decent choice for Trump.  He continues to put Indiana solidly in the “R” column, as a former Governor he is perceived as being a capable executive and politician, and he otherwise stays in the background.  WAY in the background.  At the other extreme, Palin was a horrible choice for McCain.  While she did provide some balance from a youth/gender standpoint, she took the spotlight, she was perceived as incompetent, and Alaska wasn’t in-play.

The Senate Strategy

While the battle to control the Senate in 2020 is separately important, these statewide races have considerable impact on the Presidential race.  Not only do 13 of the 18 states that are in-play for the Presidential election also have Senate elections in 2020, a good set of Senate candidates across the board creates an enormous amount of synergy.  Even if the Senate candidate loses, a strong Senate campaign can still help the top of the ticket by forcing Republicans to divert resources.  This is still very much a work-in-progress (and a future blog topic).  In my perfect world, I do see a few Democrats that could mount strong 2020 challenges to incumbent Republican Senators:

  • Beto O’Rourke against John Cornyn (R-TX)
  • John Hickenlooper against Cory Gardner (R-CO)
  • Mark Kelly against Martha McSally (R-AZ)
  • Stacey Abrams against David Perdue (R-GA)
  • Tom Vilsack against Joni Ernst (R-IA)
  • Susan Rice against Susan Collins (R-ME)
  • Amy McGrath against Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

Some of these would be SO much fun to watch!

The Florida Strategy

Florida Democrats struggled in 2018 despite a nationwide trend in the other direction.  While Trump’s immigration policies have alienated many Hispanic voters in Florida, they still didn’t turn out in large numbers for Democrats.  That could change, but probably not by 2020.  Florida’s trend toward a more diverse and younger electorate also won’t happen anytime soon.  The right 2020 ticket might be competitive here, but even that would eat up resources.  There are no other 2020 statewide races in Florida and it is a massively expensive state in which to conduct a statewide campaign.  The risk/reward ratio just isn’t promising.

Given the large number of Electoral votes in Florida, candidates always want to focus here.  However, from a purely numbers perspective, the best 2020 Florida strategy may be to write it off.

Bottom Lines

To beat Trump in the Electoral College, the best strategies are The Middle America Strategy, The Old White Establishment Male Strategy, and The Military Strategy.  The top of the ticket must be able to successfully execute at least one of them.

For the VP spot, I’d suggest a wait-and-see approach.  My first instinct would be to stack the ticket with a VP that can execute one of the other three cornerstone strategies.  However, if a strong candidate using one of the other strategies emerges from the primary pack, then they should be the choice.

None of this will initially thrill young and/or progressive Democrats, but the numbers are the numbers.  Democrats need the win.  No agenda across the entire Democratic political spectrum has any chance of success under another four years of Trump.

National Emergency

Posted on by admin

I’ve spent considerable time looking into Trump’s “national emergency.”  As a U.S. citizen, I am now genuinely appalled and frightened.  I’m also quite disappointed that the media has largely missed the big picture here.  I guess that’s why I have a blog.

As everyone is now aware, Trump has decided to declare a national emergency to build his wall – ignoring the will of the American majority and the compromise immigration measure passed by both the Senate and the House.  There have since been no shortage of pundits weighing in from all sides with respect to the legality, advisability, and impact of such a declaration.  Again, they’ve mostly buried the lede.

I personally decided that I needed to search online for the appropriate laws so that I could read the original texts of the various national emergency statutes being cited.  Frankly, I’m now rather sorry that I did.  Not only could you easily fit a blue whale down this particular rabbit hole, I sincerely had no idea that anything approaching this was actually a law – or, more accurately, a massive matrix of laws.

Allow me to briefly summarize how this works.

The 1976 National Emergencies Act (NEA) gives any President the power to declare a national emergency while providing no guidelines as to what actually constitutes a national emergency.  It’s an emergency simply because a President says it is.  The authors of this brilliant piece of legislation did include a “check-and-balance” that allows Congress to override such a declaration by a simple majority vote in both the House and Senate.  However, they forgot that the override legislation itself was subject to a Presidential veto – which would then require a 2/3 vote in both chambers to override.  Seriously, they forgot.  Idiots.  The NEA also sunsets any national emergency declaration but, since it can just be declared again, the sunset is functionally useless.

Thus, in practice, a President could declare that a shortage of golf balls is an open-ended national emergency and it would take a 2/3 vote in both the House and the Senate to reverse it.  Dandy.

Once a President makes a functionally unilateral declaration of a national emergency, a plethora of completely separate laws can then be easily invoked that give the President a massive amount of unchecked power.  While the NEA does requires that the President list the various statutes granting the powers being invoked, it doesn’t require any defense of that invocation.  The President can just say “That one and that one.”

If you want a cold chill running up your spine, here’s a helpful list from the Brennan Center for Justice that summarizes 123 such powers – and that list appears to be incomplete.  The laws themselves can be very tough reads and tend to be quite vague – because vague is obviously what you want when you’re defining emergency executive powers.

Trump’s national emergency declaration is the 59th since 1976.  Previous declarations have included George W. Bush’s declaration in the wake of 9/11 and Barack Obama’s declaration during the H1N1 pandemic.  The vast majority of declarations have been used to simply impose sanctions on foreign entities.  Trump’s declaration, however, is the very first time the act has been used to override the explicit wishes of Congress.

The problem is that all of this seems to be completely legal.  Congress has abdicated many of their powers to any President that simply wants them.  It’s just that easy.  While previous Presidents of both parties have shown self-restraint in the use of national emergency declarations, the current office holder has no such inhibitions.  I’m only surprised that Trump and his staff haven’t yet grabbed even more power.  In the current political environment, I see few presidential acts that would incur the necessary 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress to stop him.

Here’s just a few of the many powers that a President can claim after declaring a national emergency:

  • Redirect military construction funds
  • Suspend any part of the Clean Air Act
  • Prohibit or limit the export of crude oil or any agricultural good
  • Waive confidentiality requirements for public health services
  • Suspend prohibitions on chemical weapons and toxic waste disposal
  • Allow testing of biological and chemical agents on unwitting human subjects
  • Do pretty much anything to the Capitol grounds and structures
  • Take control of any airport that used to be on federally-owned land (including Austin’s airport)
  • Take possession of any privately owned vessel in U.S. waters
  • Assume broad authority to regulate all commercial transactions
  • Prohibit all economic transactions with any person, including a U.S. citizen
  • Order any unit or member of the Ready Reserve to active duty for up to two years
  • Keep people in military service without their consent
  • Appoint anyone to the rank of major general or rear admiral
  • Prosecute anyone that the government has “reason to believe” may obstruct defense activities
  • Deploy federal troops within the U.S. to put down an “insurrection”, as defined by the President
  • Grant and revoke broadcast station licenses
  • Assume control over all U.S. Internet traffic

At least a few of the above should evoke fear from everyone of any political persuasion.

The emergency construction authority cited by Trump to fund his wall allows him to redirect any budgeted military construction funds that aren’t already under contract.  While the new usage vaguely “requires the use of the armed forces,” that’s likely an easy bar to reach given that Trump has already deployed thousands of troops to our southern border.

There’s about $21 billion in unobligated military construction funds that Trump could tap.  Most of that money was allocated just last fall for DoD installations in 38 states and at least 14 overseas locations.  There’s a ton of projects, including numerous barracks, shipyards, runways, control towers, garages, etc., but here’s just few of the big ticket items:

  • Hospital construction in Landstuhl, Germany
  • Vehicle maintenance shop at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait
  • On-base schools in Japan and Germany
  • Family housing stateside and overseas
  • On-base school at Fort Campbell, Kentucky
  • F-35 hangars at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona and Camp Pendleton, California
  • Drydock repairs at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
  • Special ops training facility in North Carolina
  • Training centers in Georgia and Florida

Note that all of the above have gone through a rigorous appropriations process and have been deemed by the DoD to be essential to force readiness.  For example, Landstuhl is the nearest treatment center for wounded soldiers coming from Iraq and Afghanistan.  And the Senate just last week heard horror stories from military families about the sorry state of housing in some areas.  If Trump steals hard-won construction money to please his political base, it’s not like the original military needs will simply go away.  The DoD will have to go back to Congress to replace the money in the next budget cycle.  In the meantime, the military will suffer.

My presumption is that Team Trump will cherry-pick projects in solidly Democratic states and will try to avoid projects in states with Republican Senators and in districts with Republican Representatives.  Thus, the Kentucky school is likely safe; the F-35 hanger in California is doubtful.  There’s simply no one to stop Trump from using his declaration for political benefit.  He can and he will.

A few Democrats seem to think there’s a legal battle to be won to overturn the declaration.  Some are hanging their hopes on a 1952 Supreme Court ruling that overrode a Truman emergency declaration.  However, that decision was reached prior to the passage of the NEA.  Yes, the fact that Trump took Air Force One for a golfing trip to Mar-A-Lago immediately after his emergency declaration tells us that this was a purely political emergency.  And, yes, Trump even admitted that “I didn’t need to do this.”  None of that is relevant.  Congress passed these laws and it’s not the court’s job to protect Congress from itself.

A few Republicans have expressed trepidation, but most of them don’t want to challenge Trump.  There’s certainly plenty of Republican votes to block any effort to overturn the declaration.  These Republicans are essentially saying that the Legislative branch is impotent if the Executive branch decides to flex its muscles.  So much for the Constitutional separation of powers.

Republicans are making a couple of huge political mistakes as well.

A vote to re-purpose military funds for the wall will be tough to defend in the next election cycle.  DoD MILCON budgets are a joke if they can be used as a presidential slush fund at the stroke of a pen.  Force readiness isn’t a political football.  And screw with military families at your own risk.

More politically important, though, an eventual Democratic successor to Trump will have a solid precedent upon which to declare gun violence or climate change to be a national emergency.  While those wouldn’t be any more reasonable than Trump’s declaration, they’d be just as legal.

Yes.  We most certainly do have a national emergency.  It’s just not the one that Trump declared.

Trump & Intelligence

Posted on by admin

Trump & Intelligence:  Two words that should never be used anywhere near one another.

Earlier this week, the directors of our major intelligence agencies appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee to present their Worldwide Threat Assessment.  The report itself is a tough, depressing read and is best paired with a bottle of good Scotch.

Those appearing included:

  • Dan Coats, Director of National Intelligence
  • Gina Haspel, CIA Director
  • Christopher Wray, FBI Director
  • Gen. Paul Nakasone, National Security Agency Director
  • Gen. Robert Ashley, Defense Intelligence Agency Director
  • Robert Cardillo, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Director

While I disagree with the political opinions of a few of these folks, it’d be tough to say that this crowd doesn’t have the credentials to back up any unanimous positions regarding national security.  Coats is a former Ambassador and served on the Select Committee on Intelligence in the Senate.  Haspel is a career CIA operative.  Wray is serving for a second time as the FBI Director.  Nakasone is a four-star Army general who has run Cyber Command & Second Army with tours in Iraq, Afghanistan, & Korea.  Ashley is a three-star Army general who has spent most of his career in Army intelligence.  Cardillo is a career intelligence officer.

And yet they jointly dared to challenge Trump’s opinions about, well, pretty much everything.  The report doesn’t really say much that any literate person doesn’t already know:  ISIS is still a treat, Iran isn’t currently building nuclear weapons, North Korea isn’t giving up nuclear weapons, China is still pursuing global superiority, Russia is still trying to influence U.S. elections, climate change is real, and our traditional allies are pretty pissed at us.  I’m shocked!

In response, Trump tweeted that all of those testifying were “naive” and said that they “should go back to school!”

Seriously.  The man who has never met an intelligence briefing that he’s actually read has the temerity to disparage the intellect of people with strong intelligence backgrounds who are running the intelligence agencies in his own remarkably anti-intellectual administration.

Can someone remind me again when we started just accepting this kind of crap as normal?

The Schultz Scenarios

Posted on by admin

So here I was, in the midst of composing multiple blog entries that weighed in on possible Democrat strategies and candidates to win the Presidency in 2020.  Mostly, I was trying to organize a surfeit of suppositions into coherent postings of humane length.  I had almost managed to compartmentalize the daily onslaught of insanity from TrumpLand to focus on the future.

And then there was Howard Schultz.

If this egomaniac runs as an independent in 2020, I’m looking at a passel of pointless text.

After my previous post expressing dismay over Schultz’s possible candidacy, I received considerable pushback questioning the certainty of my conclusions.  Let me be clear.  There is no reasonable scenario where Schultz runs as an independent and Trump does not win re-election.  Anyone who believes otherwise simply doesn’t understand Electoral College math nor the rules of the game.  This isn’t a popularity contest.  It’s just barely an election.

So, okay.  Let’s look into this.

First, though, let me address my rationale to abandon Starbucks.  It was frankly a throw-away thought in my prior post.  Schultz is no longer a Starbucks employee and the company did issue a statement of neutrality regarding 2020.  However, that does not change the fact that Schultz owns about $2.4B worth of Starbucks stock.  If the stock price drops just $1, Schultz’ net worth drops about $68M.  Even a multi-billionaire might notice that.  I realized that skipping my latte wouldn’t have a huge impact here.  It just made me feel slightly better.  And then today, Schultz went on Fox News to tell those of us who dared question him that we “need a little bit less caffeine.”  Well.  Wish granted, jackass.

With that out of the way, let’s move to three basic truths:

  1. Schultz is a Democrat.  Sure, he’s a fiscal conservative and sits to the right of likely Democratic candidates on health care, but he’s still very much a Democrat.  Despite his current protestations, this isn’t open for debate; he himself has said he was a Democrat.  Few Republicans are going to buy what he’s selling.  Republican money will flood to Schultz – but only to split the Democratic vote.  There are no more than a handful of Trump voters that would switch to Schultz and certainly not enough voters to swing any red state’s Electoral votes.
  2. Schultz & Company claim that over 40% of voters are independent and that those are their principal targets.  That position is both misleading and unrealistic.  Most independents (including myself) self-identify as independent but politically lean toward one of the major parties at the moment.  Gallop estimates that only 11% of voters are truly independent and, in that diverse group, it’s rather doubtful that Schultz would be a unifying factor.  In any case, independents don’t win elections; independents swing elections.
  3. My prior analysis of the 2020 Electoral Landscape is still valid.  As noted above, all solid Republican states will remain solid Republican.  It is possible, however, that Schultz could move the needle on a couple of solid Democratic states.  It’s more probable that his greatest impact would be in the swing states.

I thus see five possible outcomes, presented here in the order of probability:

  1. Schultz wins no Electoral votes, but screws the Democratic candidate.  Trump is re-elected President.
    • This is by far the most likely scenario.  The Democratic candidate will be forced to run a campaign that deals with Schultz;  Trump will be able to run exactly the same campaign he’d run without Schultz in the picture.  Schultz and the Democratic candidate will split a majority of votes in several swing states.  Trump will win only a plurality of votes in those states but will still be awarded all of those states’ Electoral votes.  It doesn’t matter if that’s fair or not.  That’s the way it is.
  2. Schultz wins some Electoral votes, but no candidate gets a majority.  Trump is re-elected President.
    • This could easily happen.  If no candidate receives 270 Electoral votes, the Constitution dictates that the U.S. House then decides the winner, with each state getting exactly one vote.  While Democrats control the House, Republicans control 26 states in the House.  Game over.
  3. Schultz wins few (if any) Electoral votes, but is a non-issue.
    • This only happens if Schultz completely implodes and gets very few popular votes anywhere.  However, since Schultz has a boatload of money to self-fund a serious campaign, this isn’t a likely outcome.  If he runs, he can buy impact.  If the Democrat manages to win in this case, it’ll be after a much tougher battle than necessary.
  4. Schultz wins no Electoral votes, but screws Trump.  The Democratic candidate is elected President.
    • I’ll include this possibility for completeness only.  However, as previously noted, Schultz will only take votes away from the Democrat.  If someone wants to propose any solid Republican state that might vote for Schultz, please chime in.  (Hint:  Don’t bother.)
  5. Schultz wins a majority of the Electoral votes.  Schultz is elected President.
    • This just ain’t gonna happen.  Schultz and his paid consultants are delusional if they believe otherwise.  Do the math.  For the sake of argument, let’s assume an alternate universe where Schultz can somehow win every toss up state plus every state that leans Democratic plus every state that leans Republican.  I’ll even throw in his home state of Washington and nearby Oregon just for grins — although they are both safely Democratic at the moment.  In this scenario, Schultz somehow wins in states as diverse as Texas, Florida, Virginia, Maine, Colorado, Minnesota, and Washington.  And yet, even with ALL of these 20 states in his column, Schultz would STILL be well short of an Electoral victory.  See Outcome #2.  There is no plausible reality in which Schultz wins.  Period.  In the current political environment, no third-party candidate could.

So.  Is there a chance the Democrats could still win if Schultz runs as an independent?  Sure.  There’s a chance that we get the third outcome above.  There’s also a chance that we get hit by a giant asteroid.

If the alternative is another four years of Trump, I’ll take the asteroid.

Schultz 2020 = Trump 2020

Posted on by admin

Starbucks founder and former CEO Howard Schultz was just on 60 Minutes.  The man is considering a third-party bid for the Presidency in 2020.

Bloody hell.

Folks, that’s the ballgame if he runs.  Schultz is a billionaire with the money to make a serious dent in the contest.  He has no chance of winning the election, mind you.  But he will swing the election to Trump.  The Electoral map and the rules of the game all but guarantee it, regardless of the Democratic nominee.  When directly asked if he was concerned about his negative impact on Democrats, Schultz dodged the question with some “I want to see America win” pablum reminiscent of the current occupant of the White House.  Make no mistake:  Even more so than Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, and Jill Stein before him, an independent vanity candidacy by Schultz will be a catastrophic spoiler.

Steve Schmidt, the former manager of Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign, is on-board with Schultz.  Schmidt, you might remember, is the genius responsible for putting Sarah Palin on that ticket.  You’d think he’d be done screwing with America.  But apparently not.

Despite contemplating the massacre of a Democrat’s chances in 2020, Schultz claims to be a “lifelong Democrat” himself.   If true, then he should declare as a Democrat, enter the primary, and see if he can gather enough Democratic support to win the nomination.  I’d even listen to his pitch myself.  There are worse choices.  If Schultz doesn’t like the Democratic party, he should try to fix it rather than undermine it.  In any case, if Schultz is ultimately responsible for another four years of Trump, history will never forgive him.  I know I never will.

I am a very regular customer at Starbucks and have, in fact, composed multiple blog entries at local establishments.  I use the Starbucks app so I quite depressingly know exactly how much I spend with them.  While I’m not generally one for boycotts, at this point I cannot in good conscience continue to frequent the chain.  Schultz is the largest shareholder of Starbucks and I don’t want a penny more of my money to assist his potential campaign.  I will use the remainder of my nine Starbucks Stars to make them give me the free drinks I’m already owed, but I will then take my business to other coffee shops.  If Schultz comes to his senses and backs off the idea of an independent bid, I’ll return to Starbucks and offer him my sincere appreciation.

In the meantime, whenever this idiot talks, I’ll only hear the immortal words of a possible fictional relative, one Sergeant Schultz from “Hogan’s Heroes”:

“I see nothing! I know nothing!”

The Donald

Posted on by admin

With sincere apologies to William Blake and to a well-remembered English teacher whose passion for “The Tyger” was contagious.  [Edit: And to several readers who thought this posting was weird: Yeah. It is.]

Donald Donald, breeding blight,
In the House that once was White,
What indifferent shrug or sigh,
Could frame thy imbecility?

In what batch of ballots past,
Were such callous choices cast?
On what skills dared we depend?
What sad life, kept prospects pinned?

And what hubris, & what guile,
Could twist the truth for reasons vile?
And when thy hand began to tweet,
What ill will didst thou entreat?

What the venom, cold and crass,
Thin skin shedding in the grass?
What the skulking hiss we hear,
Strangled and benumbed from fear!

With forty-four who came before,
Diminished by an oafish boor:
Shown thy soul, did we not see?
Did we who chose such men choose thee?

Donald Donald, breeding blight,
In the House that once was White,
May the time be drawing nigh,
To tame thy imbecility?

Data Matters

Posted on by admin

“I’m not a member of any organized political party…. I’m a Democrat.”

– Will Rogers, 1935.

Some things never change.  While Democrats have thus far shown remarkable solidarity in response to the shutdown, there are numerous party battles on the horizon that could make Game of Thrones look like a baby shower competition.

There’s the obvious acrimony that will develop as an abundance of aspirants decide they are the consummate choice to take on Trump.  Setting the criteria for inclusion in primary debates – and setting rules for those debates – won’t be at all pretty.  There’s also the very political selection of a city to host the 2020 Democratic convention.  And, of course, there’s the creation of the 2020 Democratic party platform – a fairly meaningless document that will nonetheless cause massive amounts of heartburn.

The role of the Democratic National Committee itself will be an issue.  Tom Perez, the DNC chairman, needs to convince skeptics from all corners of his party that the DNC will be a neutral actor during the primaries.  It doesn’t help that Obama let the DNC whither in favor of his own Organizing for America project.  As a result, the DNC is still playing catch-up with its Republican counterpoint in numerous arenas.

One arena of massive concern is in the management of voter data.  Yeah, I get it.  You’re thinking about being stuck on a slow elevator watching paint dry on Mike Pence’s face while listening to Yanni.  However, this tedious, esoteric issue could easily be the difference between winning and losing in 2020.

There’s a very ugly public battle currently being fought over whether ownership of data should be at the national or state level.  The DNC wants to combine all data into one common database; the states want their own repositories.

State parties understandably want to retain control of the data that they (mostly) have gathered.  They are also correct that state-level data management worked just fine during the mid-term elections.  However, that was because the largest entities holding elections were the states; there were no national contests.

Unfortunately, silos of data only work well within those silos.  They are largely useless in their native form by anyone else (for a variety of reasons well beyond a political blog).  The states have countered that they can work directly with other states to share their data, but that’s just a whole lot of repetitive work.

The DNC has understandably tried to position themselves as the best choice to own everything.  Central data management does brings massive benefits to a national campaign and leveraging a common set of data augmentation, validation, and reporting schemes helps candidates at all levels.  Unfortunately, Perez has shown an amazing lack of political nuance as he’s lobbied for that point of view, sending a tone-deaf memo to state party leaders berating them for not immediately acknowledging his brilliance and not simply handing over all of their data.

Both the state and national parties understand that data is valuable and that there is money to be made by whatever entity controls it.  However, from a standpoint of winning elections, this CANNOT BE AN ISSUE.  The state and national folks need to figure out how to share data AND the income it generates.

If only there was someone that was an expert in data management that could help the Democrats figure all of this out.

Oh, wait.  I’M an expert.  And it’s not like I’m the only one.  Anyone that has even a cursory understanding of the management of large data sets knows that this is by no means a unique problem.  There is nothing new here.  Nothing.  Large multi-site & multi-national corporations have been dealing with this problem for eons.  Local execs always want to control their own data; corporate execs always want to manage everything at a corporate level.  I guarantee that the DNC data issues are nowhere near as complex as the issues faced by any Fortune 500 company.

After Republicans got spanked by OFA in 2012 with respect to data management, the Republican National Committee began a state-of-the-art project to update their data strategy.  Although it’s a vast oversimplification, the RNC essentially created a for-profit trust which allows multiple Republican entities to deposit data in a common format in a centralized database.  That data is augmented with social media information, voter analytics, and data from numerous other sources to create a quite remarkable (and frankly scary) voter base profile.  For a fee, subsets of that data are then be made easily available to candidates and groups affiliated with the Republican Party.  The data contributors share in the revenue but, since the trust itself is a separate entity, it can raise money free from campaign finance limitations.

The strategy worked well and was a huge resource for Republicans in 2016.  Hillary Clinton even blamed her loss partially on the DNC’s data not being nearly as useful as the RNC’s data.  While there were no shortage of other reasons for her loss, the quality and usage of voter information were definitely issues.  That’s simply not acceptable for 2020.

The DNC has essentially said that they want to copy the RNC strategy.  That’s not a bad choice at all, but technology has moved on even in the few intervening years and there’s even more that Democrats can do if they can get their acts together.  It would help a whole lot if party leaders at all levels could tone down their rhetoric and acknowledge that this does not have to be a zero-sum game.

This is a national issue and it needs a national strategy.  The states need to give up sole ownership of their data; the national party needs to let the states share in data revenue.  Time is running out and Democrats are far behind Republicans in this arena.  Democrats need to hire someone immediately that knows what the hell they’re doing and give them the authority to make it happen.

$5.7 Billion

Posted on by admin

I couldn’t bring myself to listen to Trump’s prime-time border diatribe last night, but I did read the transcript.  Wow.  Numerous media outlets have done a decent job fact-checking the cornucopia of outright lies, so there’s little reason to do that.  However, I will add a few thoughts to my previous take on the subject.

First, could a southern wall stop a random terrorist from entering the country?  Yeah, sure.  But at an initial cost of $5.7B, Trump would need to prove that it’s a cost-effective solution to a pervasive problem.  He didn’t.  He can’t.  The facts are:

  • Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security recently estimated that successful illegal entries into the U.S. fell 91% between 2000 and 2016.  Seems we’re already on the right track without a wall.
  • Over 2/3 of the immigrants that are currently in the U.S. illegally entered the country legally and then overstayed their visas.  If we want to fix an illegal immigration problem, perhaps visa enforcement might be the place to start.
  • While Trump keeps telling us that 4,000 terrorists were caught trying to enter the U.S. in 2017, he conveniently ignores the fact that only 12 non-U.S. citizens on the terror watchlist were stopped at the Mexican border last year.  The vast majority of the rest were stopped at airports.  Even assuming for the moment that a wall would work, is $5.7B a good price to pay to address .03% of the problem?
  • The border patrol did stop another 41 non-U.S. citizens on the watchlist at the Canadian border.  Are we going to build a northern wall as well?

While $5.7B is real money, does anyone really think that would be the end of it?  I’m pretty sure that’s not the way extortion works.  If Trump gets his down payment, we’ll have a new shutdown well before the end of the year to pay for the next installment.

So how about this?  We give Trump the $5.7B so he can say he “won” – BUT he can only use the money for one of several non-wall options.  Here’s just a few possibilities:

  • If we really want to make America safer, we could buy the military some very impressive hardware.  $5.7B will buy 2 Zumwalt-class Guided Missile Destroyers, 47 F-35A Stealth Fighters, or 161 M1A2 Abrams Tanks.
  • If we want something that might actually be useful on the border, $5.7B will buy 1414 RQ-4 Global Hawk Surveillance Drones.  Or we could just pay to double the number of border patrol agents for the next five years.
  • $5.7B would go a very long way towards a cure for Alzheimer’s.  Find me anyone that thinks that’d be a waste of money.
  • Thinking outside the box a bit, we could buy both an iPhone X and an iPad Pro for every man, woman, and child living in the Greater Austin area … ’cause, well, that’s where I live.
  • We could buy a 2019 F-150 for every military service member currently deployed outside of the United States.
  • We could write a $1700 check to every public school teacher in America.
  • The Dallas Cowboys are currently worth a bit over $5B.  We could literally make them America’s Team and we’d even have some money left over to buy a decent offensive line.

Of course, we could also just not spend money we don’t have.  Why doesn’t that ever occur to anyone in Washington?

Shutdown Politics

Posted on by admin

Paging 2020 Democratic presidential candidates:

Where the hell are you?

The government shutdown over border wall funding should be your opportunity to break out early.  This is a slam-dunk, folks.

Trump has shuttered part of the government causing paychecks to stop for some 800,000 federal employees ….

  • … over a wall that doesn’t have popular support.
  • … over the holidays.
  • … over the objections of his own party’s leadership in Congress.
  • … after previously agreeing to a bipartisan bill that kept the government open.
  • … after stating on live TV that he’d take responsibility.

Now is the time to get out there and calmly explain …

  • … why the wall is simply not a good idea.
  • … why we can’t afford it.
  • … that Trump is just playing politics.
  • … that the departments of homeland security, state, justice, transportation, agriculture, and interior work for Trump.  As does NASA.  If he doesn’t think these folks need to get paid, that’s on him.

I’m all for compromise, but not this time.  Any parent knows you can’t give into a child’s tantrum.  People apparently need to be reminded of that.

Unfortunately, I don’t see a charismatic spokesperson emerging from the Democratic camp.  We don’t need the mirror image of Trump playing partisan politics on the left.  Schumer and Pelosi can handle the politics; neither can be the voice of reason.  What we need is an adult.  Sure, you’re on vacation.  Get over it.  Show us the leader we need is you.

Troop Withdrawals

Posted on by admin

Trump recently announced that American troops will immediately withdraw from Syria and will decrease their presence by 50% in Afghanistan.

As a proud Army Brat (the self-descriptive term used by those of us who grew up in career Army families), I am perhaps a bit more attentive than most when American troops are deployed into harm’s way.  My default reaction is always positive when overseas military personnel are brought home to their loved ones.  I’ve lived the family hardships when a parent and spouse is deployed into an active war zone.  I’ve seen the pain when they don’t come home.

However, our military personnel and their families understand the need to protect American interests abroad.  They understand that deployments into hostile environments are a part of the job.  They only ask for sane, thoughtful leadership with defined goals and solid plans to achieve those goals that neither wastes nor trivializes their sacrifices.

I wouldn’t pretend to claim more than a basic understanding of the infinite nuances of politics and religion in the Greater Middle East.  I suspect I know a whole lot more than our Commander in Chief, but let’s put that aside for the moment.

Announcing major military directives by random tweet is more than irresponsible.  It is simply insane.

We currently have 2000 U.S. troops in Syria. Those troops, along with our Kurdish allies who have done most of the heavy lifting, now control most of the “useful” parts of Syria (oil & gas fields, water, fertile land).  Without an American presence, the Kurds will face Russian, Iranian, Turkish, and ISIS militaries for control – none of which would be in American interests.  Where’s the plan for phasing out our involvement without screwing ourselves and our allies?

We currently have about 14,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.  They mostly serve in training and support roles with minimal combat exposure but are still an integral part of the regional conflict.  Again, where’s the plan for the drawdown?

The bottom line is that there are no plans.  None.  The President blindsided his own people.

General James Mattis, the current Secretary of Defense, is most definitely a hawk.  However, he is unquestionably a patriot and a soldier’s soldier who has earned the respect of the men and women under his command.  Brett McGurk, the State Department’s envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, is a career diplomat who actually is an expert in these conflicts.  Both men deserved to be heard and their arguments deserved to be addressed.  However, not only did Trump ignore their advice, both men were so shocked by the presidential tweets that they felt the need to resign.  Our allies were similarly blindsided as was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the political leadership of both parties.

The only people voicing full-throated support for Trump’s ill-conceived actions are the Presidents of Russia, Syria, Iran, and Turkey – along with Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Rand Paul.

Seriously?

Bringing troops home is by no means intrinsically wrong.  Ignoring the advice of military leaders and civilian experts is likewise not intrinsically wrong.  The Commander in Chief has those prerogatives.

However, if Trump wants support from anyone beyond our enemies, far-right Fox pundits, and a few random isolationists, he needs to present his case with facts, defend it to the American public, and define sane plans for executing the withdrawals.

I’m not holding my breath.

On this Christmas Eve, our allies are learning that they can’t count on America, our military is confused, the stock market is tanking, some 800,000 federal employees aren’t getting paid over the holiday season, and the few sane remaining members of the Trump administration are running for the hills.  Meanwhile, we’re stuck with Little Dumber Boy that governs by TV-inspired tweets focused on a damn wall.

I’m hoping this is just a bad Hallmark Christmas movie and that the happy ending is coming real soon now.