It’s Time for Bernie to Drop Out

bernie-sanders-portrait-01

Bernie Sanders made a nice run. He has secured his place in American history for the way he has pushed the Democratic Party to the left. I fully expect many of his policy ideas will one day become a reality, not unlike how the views of the late 19th-century populist movement found their way into the political mainstream or how the conservative ideals of Barry Goldwater influenced the Republican Party. (See Michael Kazin on these historical developments).

Last night Joe Biden scored overwhelming victories in Florida, Illinois, and Arizona. He has an almost insurmountable delegate lead.  There are now three main reasons why Sanders must drop out.

  1. He has very little chance of winning in the nomination.
  2. If the primary race ends here, the Democratic Party can unify early and thus more effectively prepare for November.
  3. States can cancel or postpone primaries and thus follow the advice we are getting from the health care community about social distancing.

I am Hearing About Two Different Generational Divides

Bernie kids

First, there is the general divide in the Democratic Party. The millennials and Gen X-ers  seem to like Bernie Sanders. Baby boomers like Joe Biden. Read Eric Levitz’s piece at New York Magazine.

Second, there seems to be a divide in how Americans are responding to the coronavirus. Read Rana Foroohar’s piece at Financial Times or this recent Wall Street Journal piece.

If all this reporting is correct, younger Americans love socialism, the environment, socialized medicine, and free college, but they are also selfish and more than willing to ignore the advice of older Americans who have scientific expertise.

It must be more complicated than this, but as a college professor of a certain age who spends a lot of time with young people, I find this discussion to be very interesting.

ADDENDUM: I just thought of another generational divide. Older and younger evangelicals on the Trump presidency.

Assessing Last Night’s Democratic Debate

Biden Sanders

Over at The New York Times, an impressive group of commentators and intellectuals evaluate last night debate—perhaps the last–between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. The group includes Gail Collins, Nicole Hemmer, Michelle Goldberg, Wajahat Ali, Peter Wehner, Jamelle Bouie, and Elizabeth Bouie.

Here is Hemmer on Biden’s performance:

The smartest move Biden made in the debate — other than committing to a female running mate — was tying revolution to disruption. At a moment when the world’s been turned upside down, he offered to flip it right side up, not shake it up more. His reassurances send a powerful general-election message — and why he won the debate.

Here is Elizabeth Bruenig on Sanders’s performance:

That’s odd about Sanders is that he’s simultaneously the ideas candidate — unlike Biden, he has a philosophical brief against the excesses of American individualism — and the practical, materially focused candidate, worrying over how low-wage workers will survive this crisis financially. That breadth of interests came through strongly in this debate, and the no-audience format suited him well.

Read the entire piece here.

Trump Seems Incapable of Leading

Trump corona speech

Earlier today a Facebook friend wrote on my wall:

I do appreciate your academic research and study on Politics and History, but I would strongly encourage you to not use this time for divisive discussion and rhetoric! It should be a time to come together regardless of political bent for the sake of the health of our Nation -one Nation under God! We should never allow our differences to divide but allow our uniqueness to unite! The watching world is watching and our desire together should be for the world to see Christ through our lives, friend!

Here was part of my response:

…we as the church and as citizens need to hold our government accountable in times like these. As N.T. Wright puts it in his excellent little book *God in Public*: “it is the inalienable task of God’s people, of those who worship the creator God, whom we see in Jesus and know through the Spirit, to speak truth to power. This calling will mean that reminding governments, local councilors, authorities in every sphere, including church leaders, of *their* calling to selfless stewardship. It will mean pointing out fearlessly (but also humbly:arrogance will spoil the whole thing) where trust is being abused, in whatever way.” The president, some of his evangelical supporters, and his PR firm at Fox News have placed lives in jeopardy by circulating a bunch of lies and mistruths about coronavirus. They have peddled, and continue to peddle, conspiracy theories about the virus. How can the church not speak-up about this? Yes, the “health” of our nation is at stake–both in terms of bodies and social fabric. And yes, the health of the church and its witness is also at stake. 

For example, we are in the midst of a major pandemic and this is what our leader, the President of the United States, is tweeting today:

I offered some historical context for this tweet here.

And there is this:

Trump watched a church service. This is good. Jenetzen Franklin is one of Trump’s court evangelicals so we should not be surprised that he read Trump’s national day of prayer during the service. His sermon was titled “Faith Over Fear.”

And then Trump follows-up these tweets with stuff like this:

The president is still going after Hillary Clinton, his opponent in the 2016 presidential race.

He attacks Obama and Biden. These attacks on the Obama-Biden administration’s response to H1N1 have been thoroughly debunked as lies.

We are in a major pandemic, so why not attack Chuck Schumer about something completely unrelated?

We are in the midst of a major pandemic and our POTUS is still talking about Michael Flynn:

Here is the president, in the middle of a major pandemic, telling more lies:

Maggie Haberman of *The New York Times* calls him out:

 

Sadly, to quote homeland security expert Juliette Kayyem, we need to get through this coronavirus with the president we have, not the president we need.  People like Anthony Fauci and state and local officials are the real heroes.  We also need heroic action from all Americans.  Wash those hands and practice social distancing!  This may be the most Christian thing we can do.

Joe Biden: Interim Pastor

Did you watch Joe Biden’s speech last night after his primary victories in Michigan, Mississippi, and Missouri?

Last night Wes Granberg-Michaelson, a churchman who has had a distinguished career in denominational life, politics, letters, and academia, wrote this on his Facebook page:

Listening to Joe Biden give his speech this evening, he impresses me like a strong interim pastor who comes into a congregation devastated by conflict and finally has removed its pastor, but needs someone who projects calm, confidence, trust and allows for healing. But then, the effective interim pastor has to open up space for the congregation to clarify again its values, its core mission, and its vision for the future. Pastor (or Father) Biden will have to do both things.

I know that many Bernie fans are upset tonight because the Democratic Party does not seem to be listening to the youth vote. Perhaps this is true. I am sure that a new, young, contemporary pastor is finishing seminary right now and he will soon take the pulpit.  But right now it looks like the country just needs a good interim pastor.

Thanks to Wes Granberg-Michaelson for allowing me to quote him.

Father Joe

Munich Security Conference in Munich

Los Angeles Times columnist Virginia Heffernan says America needs a father figure right now.  Here is a taste of her recent column, “Joe Biden just turned into the aspirin America needs for its Trump headache”:

An idea from progressive Catholic theology might be useful for our times: pater patitur— the father suffers.

It goes like this: A father figure, divine or otherwise, isn’t meant to relieve our suffering. Nor should he suffer for us, which suggests condescension. And he certainly shouldn’t inflict suffering on us, as too many parents do with their children. Rather, the father’s role is to suffer withus.

We’ve seen this gracious and ultimately progressive model of fatherhood from Joe Biden in recent days in his run for the Democratic nomination.

Of course, a father is a father, and in this case a white one. Biden doesn’t speak from the political or social margins. Rather he speaks from the head of the table, where — likely as not — he’s having his pot roast served to him by a woman. And that woman may be simultaneously fighting off a lunging animal-rights protester, as Jill Biden, Joe’s wife, and Symone D. Sanders, his campaign advisor, did during Biden’s Super Tuesday speech.

But if we must have a white man as president, as we have had all but once in American history, let it be a well-intentioned one, a self-critical one, one who suffers with us.

Let it be the one who, like Biden, shows up at to sit shiva and to comfort a widow and to mourn in at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C., after the 2015 massacre. Biden is a man practiced in grief, who has learned vulnerability, resilience and how to give comfort.

And isn’t that what America needs right now as we fight against despair after Trump’s desecrations?

We don’t need the agitations of Bernie Sanders; we need a salve. And though this is much harder to admit, we collectively lack the fortitude and solidarity to respond to the clarion call of the peerless Elizabeth Warren, who in stronger times could have led us to a more perfect union

Read the entire piece here.

Does Bernie Sanders Still Want to Challenge the Rules of the Democratic Convention?

Bernie

Joe Biden had a big night on Super Tuesday.  He now has the delegate lead. It is likely that he will still have the delegate lead when the 2020 Democratic National Convention begins on July 13th in Milwaukee.

Here are the convention rules regarding the selection of a presidential nominee:

A candidate will need 1,991 of the 3,979 pledged delegates to win the Democratic nomination on the first ballot. Per the Democratic National Committee, a candidate needs a majority of those eligible to vote on the ballot. Most importantly for the calculation, the candidate needs “a whole unit of delegate above half.”

Half of 3,979 is 1,989.5. As there are no delegates in this round with a half vote, a whole unit of delegate is one. Therefore, the requirement is 1,990.5 (1,989.5 + 1) delegates, which is rounded to 1,991.

If no candidate wins on the first ballot, all delegates become unpledged. There are 4,750 delegate votes on the second – and any subsequent – ballot. This total is comprised of the 3,979 formerly-pledged delegates from the first ballot as well as 767 automatic delegates [or so-called “super delegates”] with a full vote and 8 automatic delegates with a half vote.  This means there are 775 automatic delegates with a total of 771 votes, with 4,750 equal to 3,979 + 771.

Since there are delegates with a half vote, a half vote is considered a whole unit of delegate for any ballot after the first round.  Half of 4,750 is 2,375. Therefore, the requirement is 2,375.5 delegates to win the nomination when all delegates are voting.

Note that since automatic delegates are specific people or positions, the number can vary slightly – up or down – over time. For example, all Democratic members of the U.S. House are automatic delegates. If there was to be a new vacancy that remained unfilled at the time of the convention, there would be one less delegate in this category.

Before Super Tuesday, Bernie Sanders said that these rules were unfair. He is opposed to super delegates because they are not chosen by the people. Sanders probably also opposed these rules because he thought he might be leading on July 13, 2020, but would not have the 1,1991 needed to nominate.  Watch this:

Now that Biden has the delegate lead I wonder if Sanders still believes this. It may not matter since most super delegates support Biden.

Pete Buttigieg is Out: What Does It Mean?

Buttigieg 3

Pete Buttigieg is about to suspend his candidacy.  As I wrote last night, he has no path to the nomination. So what does this mean? Some comments/predictions:

  • Most of the Buttigieg votes will go to Biden.
  • Buttigieg was the smartest and most articulate person in the race.
  • If Biden becomes the next president, Buttigieg will be in the cabinet. I doubt that he will be Biden’s VP.  I think the frontrunner here is Kamala Harris.  (Of course anything can happen over the course of the next month or two and Bernie Sanders is still leading the delegate race).
  • Let’s see if Buttigieg uses his speech tonight to endorse another candidate.
  • Expect Amy Klobuchar to drop-out on Tuesday night.  Her votes will also go to Biden.

Biden Wins South Carolina. What Does it Mean?

Biden 2

The networks are telling us that Joe Biden has won South Carolina. There is also a chance Biden will be the overall delegate front-runner in the Democratic race for the nomination after the votes are counted.

We now move to Super Tuesday when Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia will hold primaries.  Biden is now the candidate of African Americans. But I also think he will be the candidate of older white working-class voters.  This coalition, with the help of the mainstream Democrats who are scared to death of a Bernie Sanders nomination (including the super delegates at the conventions, if they are needed), will lift the former Vice-President to the nomination.

So what should we expect in these states:

Alabama:  I have not seen a recent poll for this primary.  I imagine that Biden’s success among African Americans in South Carolina will help him win Alabama.

Arkansas:  This will be a close race between Bloomberg, Biden, and Sanders. I think Biden’s success in South Carolina will help him win Arkansas.  These three candidates will split the delegates.

California: Sanders in a landslide. I will be looking to see if Biden’s finishes second over Elizabeth Warren.

Colorado: Sanders in a landslide.

Maine:  Sanders will win.  After South Carolina, it now looks like second-place will be a toss-up between Buttigieg, Warren, Bloomberg, and Biden.

Massachusetts:  Sanders should win. Warren will finish second.

Minnesota: Amy Klobuchar will do well here since she is a Minnesota Senator, but I am going with Sanders.

North Carolina: This is going to be a close race between Sanders and Biden, but I think Biden will ride his win in South Carolina to victory.  It will not be a big delegate sweep for either candidate.

Oklahoma:  I am going to predict a Biden victory over Bloomberg.  Bloomberg will pick-up some delegates here.

Tennessee: Biden in a landslide.

Texas:  I think this is going to be a toss-up between Biden and Sanders.  Bloomberg is also running strong in Texas.  The winner will not have a big delegate sweep.

Utah: Sanders in a landslide.

Vermont: Sanders in a landslide.

Virginia: Sanders is leading in the polls, but I think Biden’s win in South Carolina, coupled with endorsements from Tim Kaine and Terry McAuliffe, will lift Biden to victory.  Again, whoever wins will not have a huge delegate victory.

Final thoughts:

  • Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, and Warren do not have a path to victory.  They need to drop out, but I doubt they will.  (We will see what Steyer does tonight).
  • Sanders seems to have the progressive lane all to himself, but it is worth noting that Biden is polling very well in some of these Super Tuesday states despite the fact that moderate Democratic vote is still divided between Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar. Biden can only go up after tonight’s win in South Carolina.
  • After Super Tuesday it will be a two candidate race.
  • Finally, Biden’s victory tonight will help him in primaries and general elections in places like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.  More people will start looking at him as the overwhelming front-runner in the moderate lane.  I still believe Biden has the best chance of beating Trump in Pennsylvania.

*Washington Post*: All the 2020 Democratic Candidates Are Running to the Left of Obama

Sanders and Obama

This is true.  As we noted earlier today, Bernie Sanders has pushed the party in a leftward direction.

A taste of the Post‘s recent editorial:

But the fact that Mr. Sanders’s and Ms. Warren’s positioning puts them decidedly to the left of others in the race does not make their competitors “centrist.” All, in fact, have put forward ambitious, progressive platforms for reducing inequality and promoting access to health and education.

Former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg wants to make college free for pretty much everyone — just not for the wealthiest families. He does not favor Medicare-for-all — but he does propose a generous public health-care option that, he predicts, would eventually drive private insurance companies out of business. He just would not force people to move off private plans, as Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren would.

Former vice president Joe Biden may not favor the precise Green New Deal that some activists desire, but he wants to spend a whopping $1.7 trillion to enable the country to eliminate net carbon emissions by 2050, a massive undertaking. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) was the first candidate to roll out a hefty infrastructure plan, proposing $650 billion in federal spending, and she favors legalizing marijuana. Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg would add a 5 percent surtax to income over $5 million per year, raise the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent and tax investment income of high earners at the same rate as ordinary income.

Then there are the policy moves that practically all Democrats agree on: giving legal safe harbor to the young immigrants known as “dreamers”; reviving and expanding President Barack Obama’s climate regulations; reengaging with Iran; raising the minimum wage; keeping abortion legal; cracking down on guns.

In fact, every major Democratic candidate is running on an agenda to the left of Mr. Obama’s.

Read the entire piece here.

Could Any of the Democratic Candidates Echo Trump’s Words on the Dignity of Human Life in the Womb?

7c1fe-libertyuniversityconvocation-berniesanders-201509133970jr-g4

Bernie Sanders at Liberty University in September 2015

At the National March for Life, Donald Trump said

All of us here understand an eternal truth: Every child is a precious and sacred gift from God.  Together, we must protect, cherish, and defend the dignity and the sanctity of every human life…when we see the image of the baby in the womb, we glimpse the majesty of God’s creation…When we watch a child grow, we see the splendor that radiates from each human soul.  One life changes the world.

I have written several posts at this blog about Trump’s speech at the March for Life.  He has speech writers who know how to put the right words in his mouth at events like this.  I still believe that his appearance at the March for Life was harmful to the pro-life cause.

Do any of the Democratic candidates on the stage last night in Manchester, New Hampshire believe what Trump said in the above excerpt? And if they did agree with what Trump said about the dignity of human life, would they be willing to say something like this, regardless of their position on Roe v. Wade or a women’s right to choose, before a nationally televised audience?  Would they be willing to say that abortion is a moral problem?

Here is a taste of religion writer Terry Mattingly’s recent column:

While commentators stressed that Trump attended the march to please his conservative evangelical base, this massive event in Washington, D.C., draws a complex crowd that is hard to label. It includes, for example, Catholics and evangelicals from groups that have been critical of Trump’s personal life and ethics, as well as his stands on immigration, the death penalty and related issues.

Videos of this year’s march showed many signs praising the president, but also signs critical of his bruising brand of politics.

A Facebook post by a Catholic priest — Father Jeffrey Dauses of the Diocese of Baltimore — captured this tension. Telling pro-lifers to “wake up,” Dauses attacked what he called Trump’s “callous disregard for the poor, for immigrants and refugees, for women … This man is not pro-life. He is pro-himself.”

Meanwhile, Buttigieg — an openly gay Episcopalian — did something even more daring when he appeared at a Fox News town hall in Iowa. One of the toughest questions he faced came from the leader of a network of Democrats opposed to abortion.

“Do you want the support of pro-life Democrats?” asked Kristen Day, president of Democrats for Life. “Would you support more moderate platform language in the Democratic Party to ensure that the party of diversity and inclusion really does include everybody?”

Some previous platforms, she noted, affirmed that all Democrats were welcome — even if their beliefs clashed with the party’s pro-abortion-rights orthodoxy. Now, Day added, the “platform contains language that basically says that we don’t belong, we have no part in the party because it says abortion should be legal up to nine months.”

Buttigieg refused to compromise, even though he has repeatedly stressed his credentials as a moderate Democrat striving to woo #NeverTrump Republicans and religious believers who abandoned his party in 2016.

Read the entire piece here.

As I have argued, moderate Democratic candidates like Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar have a great chance of stealing evangelical votes from Trump in 2020, but they will need to change the way they talk about abortion.  Elizabeth Warren is a Methodist, a church that still upholds a pro-life position. But I don’t see her moving in this direction.

I once tried to get Bernie Sanders to budge on abortion. Here is what I wrote about him back in September 2015:

I watched Bernie Sanders’s speech in Columbia, South Carolina on a recent night. I thought it was great. The economic populist in me was cheering. When Sanders talks about income inequality he is hitting a nerve. Sanders may not win the nomination, but he will be around long enough to make life miserable for Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic candidates running for president of the United States.

Sanders, the progressive Vermont senator, will be speaking at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia on September 14. Liberty, the school founded by the Reverend Jerry Falwell, has long been a defender of conservative values. In the past it has not only championed Christian morality, but it has promoted free markets and limited government. Sanders may be the most progressive person who has ever spoken — if not set foot — on the Lynchburg campus.

I am glad that Sanders is coming to Liberty. The university deserves accolades for inviting him to speak. Our democracy only works when we stop the shouting matches and start listening to the views of those with whom we differ before we condemn them.

I don’t know what motivated Liberty University to invite Sanders. The cynical side of me says that the Liberty leadership wants him to speak so that they can point out the wrongness of his progressive views. I am sure Sanders’s visit will be discussed at length in Liberty classrooms, giving professors plenty of opportunities to debunk his ideas.

The hopeful side of me says that Liberty is trying to move beyond its reputation as a bastion of the Christian Right and is looking to find at least some common ground with those on the Left.

At the end of his speech in Columbia, Sanders did an interview with CSPAN. Scott Scully asked Sanders about his upcoming visit to Lynchburg. Sanders said that he hoped to find some common ground with Liberty on matters related to wealth inequality, childhood poverty and health care.

I hope the students, faculty and administrators at Liberty listen carefully to Sanders. Inequality, poverty and health care are moral issues. They are things that all Christians should be concerned about. Perhaps Sanders might inspire some of the Liberty faithful to extend their religious outreach to areas that have not historically been part of the Christian Right’s moral agenda.

But let me suggest another possible topic of conversation that might take place on September 14th. It is a conversation that is unlikely to happen, but it should. I would love to see a Liberty student ask Sanders something about abortion.

Sanders often talks about “protecting the most vulnerable Americans.” It is one of the lynchpins of his campaign. For Sanders, this means protecting senior citizens and children in poverty by strengthening government programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other social safety nets. People might differ with Sanders’s approach to protecting these “most vulnerable Americans,” but few would argue that senior citizens and children are not vulnerable and do not need protecting.

In his speech in Columbia, Sanders said with much passion and force:

“It is not acceptable that billionaires grow richer while kids in this country go hungry. If we are a moral people, we stand with the most vulnerable people, the most defenseless people, in our society. To turn our backs on the children while billionaires get richer is not what this country is supposed to be about.”

Preach it Bernie!

But how can a progressive Democrat concerned about defending the most vulnerable members of society fail to say anything about abortion? Whatever one thinks about the recently released Planned Parenthood videos, one thing seems clear:  aborted fetuses are alive, they are vulnerable and they need protection.

If Democrats like Sanders are concerned about the dignity of human life — all human life — they will protect these helpless babies and work to reduce the number of abortions in America.

Such a position seems perfectly consistent with the progressive morality Sanders is preaching.

It would also make for a great conversation at Liberty University.

And, perhaps most importantly for Sanders, it might make Christians like me — people who are serious about economic inequality and excited about the Sanders candidacy — to translate that enthusiasm into a vote.

Can Any of the Democratic Candidates Appeal to Evangelicals?

DemDebate

Here is a taste of my recently published piece at Religion News Service:

Do the current Democratic candidates for president have any chance of winning evangelicals in November 2020?

Probably not.

Of the candidates left in the Democratic primary race, Pete Buttigieg has made the most of his Christian faith. Buttigieg regularly quotes the Bible on the campaign trail and is always ready to remind us that the Christian right does not have a monopoly on the language of faith.

But for many evangelicals, Buttigieg’s Bible-infused sermonettes seem indistinguishable from the usual Democratic talking points. One wonders if there is anything about his understanding of Christianity that would put him at odds with party orthodoxy.

Over the last couple of years, I have talked with a lot of Trump-voting evangelicals. Some go to my church. Some are in my family. We have exchanged emails and social media messages. I met many of them during the tour for my book “Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump.”

Based on this anecdotal evidence, I know that a lot of evangelicals will vote for Trump again. I’ve even met a few evangelicals who voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 but plan to vote for Trump in 2020 because he appoints conservative Supreme Court justices, fights for religious liberty (as defined by conservative evangelicals) and defends the interests of Israel.

But I have also met people who voted for Trump in 2016 and are looking for a justification — any justification — to vote for a Democrat in 2020.

Read the rest here.

Is Alan Dershowitz Secretly Working for the Democrats?

I am just kidding, but this was certainly strange:

Let’s summarize and breakdown this argument:

  1. Dershowitz says that a president can engage in three types of quid pro quos: for the public good, for the political interest of the president, or for the financial interest of the president.  It is often hard to distinguish which motive is at work at any given time.
  2. Trump, like any president, believes that his election is in the “public interest.” As a result, his call to investigate the Bidens was perfectly fine.  It is worth noting here that Dershowitz’s entire argument is built on the idea that Trump did ask the Ukrainians to investigate his political rival.  Not everyone on the Trump defense  team seems to agree with this.
  3. If Trump does something that he believes will get him get elected, “in the public interest,” then it cannot be “the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”  In other words, Trump can do whatever he wants because he believes his presidency to be in the national interest.  As several commentators have been pointing out in the last couple of hours, this is the equivalent of Richard Nixon telling David Frost “when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.”
  4. When Abraham Lincoln told William Tecumseh Sherman to “let the troops go to Indiana so that they can vote for the Republican Party” it was not an impeachable offense because Lincoln believed his own election was necessary for victory in the Civil War.  I am still trying to figure out how Dershowitz thinks this example has anything to do with the current impeachment case.  Lincoln was not soliciting foreign interference in an American election and withholding aid until he got it.
  5. It is dangerous to “psychoanalyze a president” or “get into the intricacies of the human mind.” I will let Adam Schiff handle this one in the video posted below.
  6. Presidents always balance national interest with motives rooted in party loyalties and personal interests when they make foreign policy decisions.  It is thus impossible to understand which motives are corrupt and which ones are not.  Again, I will let Schiff take this one.

Here is Schiff’s response:

This was one of the top moments of the entire trial.  Schiff completely dismantled Dershowitz’s argument using the Harvard professor’s own method of argumentation.

As I see it, the House case is getting stronger by the day.  This is happening for three reasons.  First, Adam Schiff has been amazing.  Second, the president has a weak defense.  Third, John Bolton has a book manuscript.

Trump’s Defense Thus Far:

Impeachment Image

  1. There was no quid pro quo (Jay Sekulow and Robert Cipollone).
  2.  The Ukraine call was about “burden sharing.”
  3.  Joe Biden, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Joe Biden (Pam Bondi and Eric Herschmann).
  4.  This impeachment is too partisan (multiple members of the defense team, including Ken Starr).
  5. This impeachment is too close in time to the last impeachment.  We are in an “age of impeachment” and this is not good for the country (Starr).
  6. Trump is a corruption fighter and was investigating corruption in the Ukraine by calling for the investigation of Biden (multiple members of the defense team).
  7. The call was perfect (Cipollone).  The call was not perfect (Robert Ray).
  8. There was a quid pro quo, but it doesn’t matter, because Trump did not commit crime (Dershowitz).

What a mess.

Unless something wild happens, the Senate will vote to keep Trump in office.  But the GOP Senators who vote against removal need an argument to take to their constituencies. This is especially the case for the Senators who are up for reelection in November.  The Trump defense team has offered an entire buffet of arguments.  GOP Senators can pick the one that will work best with the people in their states.  It doesn’t matter if the defense of Trump as a whole is coherent.  It doesn’t matter if one presentation contradicts another presentation.  There is something here for everyone.

*The New York Times* Endorses Elizabeth Warren AND Amy Klobuchar

Klobuchar and Warren

Interesting.  The Times has never endorsed two candidates before.  In this endorsement the editorial boards write: “both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration.”

On the radical side, The Times chose Elizabeth Warren over Bernie Sanders because Sanders is too old, has a political style that is not conductive to compromise, and is too “divisive.”

On the realist side, The Times chose Klobuchar because Mike Bloomberg is too rich and has not allowed “several women with whom he has nondisclosure settlements to speak freely.”  Joe Biden is too old and is running a politics of nostalgia.  Pete Buttigieg is too young.  Andrew Yang has no experience.

A taste:

The history of the editorial board would suggest that we would side squarely with the candidate with a more traditional approach to pushing the nation forward, within the realities of a constitutional framework and a multiparty country. But the events of the past few years have shaken the confidence of even the most committed institutionalists. We are not veering away from the values we espouse, but we are rattled by the weakness of the institutions that we trusted to undergird those values.

There are legitimate questions about whether our democratic system is fundamentally broken. Our elections are getting less free and fair, Congress and the courts are increasingly partisan, foreign nations are flooding society with misinformation, a deluge of money flows through our politics. And the economic mobility that made the American dream possible is vanishing.

Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it.

That’s why we’re endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar

Read the entire endorsement here.

Newspapers endorsement don’t mean much.  The real issue in this primary is whether Warren or Sanders can beat Joe Biden.  My guess is that most die-hard New York Times readers (or at least those who share the paper’s progressive-leaning politics) were already supporting Warren.

If the polls are correct, Biden should roll through Iowa, he will either win or finish in the top three in New Hampshire, and he will easily win in Nevada and South Carolina.  On Super Tuesday (March 3, 2020) he will win Texas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Oklahoma.  He will also bring home a nice delegate haul in California, whether he wins or loses the state.

According to FiveThirtyEight, Biden is will roll to the nomination.

Warren will win most likely win Massachusetts and Maine.  Klobuchar will not win a single state–not even Minnesota.

Buckle your seat belts!  The Iowa caucuses take place on February 3.

Who Should Joe Biden Pick as His Republican Vice President?

098ac-bidenYesterday Joe Biden said that he would consider a Republican as his running mate if he were to win the Democratic nomination in 2020.  Let’s have some fun with this.  Who would make a good GOP running-mate for Biden?

John Kasich:  Anti-Trumper who might help Biden win Ohio

Jeff Flake: Anti-Trumper who might help Biden win Arizona.

Mitt Romney: Trump won Utah in 2016 by more than 18 points.  I don’t think putting Romney on the ticket will help Biden win Utah in 2020.  But Romney is a national Republican and a moderate who instituted Obamacare in Massachusetts before it was called Obamacare.

Jeb Bush:  This would be a strong anti-Trump ticket and might help Biden in Florida.

Condoleezza Rice:  She is only 65 years old and an anti-Trump moderate.

Who am I missing?