The 2020 presidential election, perhaps even more than the 2016
cycle, will be complicated by several factors which so far are rarely
being mentioned, clarified or explained by the establishment
media and most of its pundits and pollsters.
This did also happen in 2016, but I think it is fair to say that most of
it happened because these “players” were in such self-denial that
they primarily and simply ignored the cold facts.
They don’t have that excuse this time.
First and foremost, virtually all NATIONWIDE presidential polls
are of little or no value in anticipating the true outcome of the 2020
race for president. That is because a U.S. presidential election is not
a national popular vote election. It is instead (and has been until now)
a state-by-state electoral college election in which the winner must
win a majority (270) of the total electors (538) who cast their votes in
Washington, DC in December, 2020 --- following the November
popular vote. If, for any reason, a candidate fails to win a majority of
electoral votes, the election goes to the U.S. house of representatives
where its 435 members determine the winner by a simple majority
vote (with each state casting one vote).
In 2020, as in 2016, the Democrats likely will receive huge majorities
in a few large states (California, New York, Illinois) ---no matter who
their nominee will be. These states produce net majorities of millions
of votes that are unlikely to be offset by the popular vote for the
Republican nominee in all the states that will be won by the GOP. In
2016, Donald Trump won the electoral college vote by a decisive
margin (304-227), even though he lost the nationwide popular vote by
more than two million votes.
Even if polls perfectly polled persons who will actually vote, and
their number of persons polled accurately measured who they will
vote for, the polls will be relatively useless if they are nationwide
totals.
The only polls that will be worth reading, now or later, are polls of
likely voters randomly selected in a relatively large sample IN THOSE
STATES WHICH ARE COMPETITIVE.
The Democratic nominee, whomever he or she is, barring a
historic screw-up of the candidate,, will not only carry the
aforementioned large states, but a number of smaller far western
and northeastern states. The Republican nominee (now likely to be
President Trump) will probably carry a number of western,
midwestern and southern states. Presidential poll numbers in these
states will mean little if anything.
On the other hand, good polls in the individual competitive states
will be very useful even now, and surely in the primaries (for
Democrats), and certainly for the final phase of the campaign going
to November.
Those states currently are, going east to west, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado
and Nevada. Six of these states were carried by Hillary Clinton in
2016; eight were carried by Donald Trump.
A few other states such as Texas could come into play as election day
approaches.
A non-factor in 2020 is the forthcoming and currently controversial
census. The results of this year’s census will only affect elections
after 2020.
If, somehow (and it is now very unlikely), Donald Trump does win the
nationwide popular vote (even by a small margin), it would almost surely
would mean a landslide electoral college victory for him. Conversely,
a much larger popular vote win for the Democratic nominee (also now
unlikely) would mean his or her election as president.
The importance of certain issues, some now highlighted and others
played down by the national media, will be key to understanding the
2020 cycle, but again the rule established above for the voting will
apply --- polls that reflect nationwide views on issues will not be
useful, only the polls on issue attitudes in individual states will matter.
With the increasing impact of regionalism and local conditions, such
attitudes could vary widely from state to state.
Caveat lector! Election news consumer, be wary of what your read in
the next 17 months! Voter manipulation is everywhere. “Fake news” is
now endemic.
Only a very few will get it right BEFORE the election. Even they will not
be right all the time.
You now have fair warning.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman. Al rights reserved.
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
Saturday, July 6, 2019
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: First 2020 Presidential Report Card
The first phases of the long trek to election night 2020 have been
passed with a series of candidate entry declarations, followed by the
first TV debate between the aspirants of the challenging party.
So what do we now know?
Barring a gigantic surprise, we know the name of the next president
of the U.S. --- but we do not know which party he or she belongs to,
or the specific name of the ultimate winning candidate.
We know the names of those Democrats who are getting most notable
numbers in the early polling, i.e., Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders,
Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro and Kamala Harris.
They will be in the next (July) debate --- and likely in the third debate.
The remaining names from the first debate will also be in the second
one, but as of now we don’t know how many of them will make it to
the third debate, or even remain in the contest. The five candidates
who did not qualify for the first debate have an uncertain 2020 future.
The punditry have weighed in, brandishing widely varied and perhaps
dubious polls, declaring winners and losers. In particular, they cite the
“decline” in support for Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, the hitherto
frontrunners. With the national TV exposure, I have previously
suggested poll numbers would change somewhat after the first debate,
but also cautioned about reading too much into them, especially those
of Biden and Sanders whose bases are strong and resilient.
It was inevitable that attention would turn to one or two of the woman
candidates --- and to least one or two of the candidates with diversity
bases. Beyond that, it would take an extraordinary TV performance by
a candidate to excite genuine interest. I don’t think we saw that,
especially from one of the 14 “minor” candidates. At least not so far.
The first caucus and primary are more than six months from now, so I
think we have to be careful about declaring trends --- much less winners
and losers.
Biden and Sanders have run for president before, and been politicians
for a long time. They have indelible public images, and they have
presumably some strong cards yet to play. Other candidates have also
begun to raise some serious campaign funds --- ensuring they will be
able to survive until the primary voting begins.
The tendency of Democrats, both running for president and for other
offices, to advocate more controversial or radical policies has
continued from the 2018 mid-term election cycle, but it remains to
be seen whether this can be a winning strategy even among
Democratic Party voters - especially with Biden in the race.
There is also a heavy presumption that the eventual vice presidential
nominee will be chosen by the Democratic nominee from among his
or her losing rivals. Perhaps that will happen, but considering the
unusual cycle, perhaps not. In the autumn of 2020, a surprise might
be in order.
With President Trump still able to turn out huge crowds, and
apparently so far holding on to his base, the Republican 2020 ticket
remains formidable --- especially if it can make inroads into the
previously reliably Democratic black, Hispanic and Jewish voters.
On the other hand, Democrat have the opportunity in 2020 to retain
and enlarge their share of suburban women voters they gained in 2018.
Two more debates, more reliable polls, and some current candidate
retirements from the field should provide us another report card on
the 2020 presidential contest, but as usual, I caution against
second-guessing the voters --- and I note the possibility of the
unexpected.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
passed with a series of candidate entry declarations, followed by the
first TV debate between the aspirants of the challenging party.
So what do we now know?
Barring a gigantic surprise, we know the name of the next president
of the U.S. --- but we do not know which party he or she belongs to,
or the specific name of the ultimate winning candidate.
We know the names of those Democrats who are getting most notable
numbers in the early polling, i.e., Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders,
Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro and Kamala Harris.
They will be in the next (July) debate --- and likely in the third debate.
The remaining names from the first debate will also be in the second
one, but as of now we don’t know how many of them will make it to
the third debate, or even remain in the contest. The five candidates
who did not qualify for the first debate have an uncertain 2020 future.
The punditry have weighed in, brandishing widely varied and perhaps
dubious polls, declaring winners and losers. In particular, they cite the
“decline” in support for Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, the hitherto
frontrunners. With the national TV exposure, I have previously
suggested poll numbers would change somewhat after the first debate,
but also cautioned about reading too much into them, especially those
of Biden and Sanders whose bases are strong and resilient.
It was inevitable that attention would turn to one or two of the woman
candidates --- and to least one or two of the candidates with diversity
bases. Beyond that, it would take an extraordinary TV performance by
a candidate to excite genuine interest. I don’t think we saw that,
especially from one of the 14 “minor” candidates. At least not so far.
The first caucus and primary are more than six months from now, so I
think we have to be careful about declaring trends --- much less winners
and losers.
Biden and Sanders have run for president before, and been politicians
for a long time. They have indelible public images, and they have
presumably some strong cards yet to play. Other candidates have also
begun to raise some serious campaign funds --- ensuring they will be
able to survive until the primary voting begins.
The tendency of Democrats, both running for president and for other
offices, to advocate more controversial or radical policies has
continued from the 2018 mid-term election cycle, but it remains to
be seen whether this can be a winning strategy even among
Democratic Party voters - especially with Biden in the race.
There is also a heavy presumption that the eventual vice presidential
nominee will be chosen by the Democratic nominee from among his
or her losing rivals. Perhaps that will happen, but considering the
unusual cycle, perhaps not. In the autumn of 2020, a surprise might
be in order.
With President Trump still able to turn out huge crowds, and
apparently so far holding on to his base, the Republican 2020 ticket
remains formidable --- especially if it can make inroads into the
previously reliably Democratic black, Hispanic and Jewish voters.
On the other hand, Democrat have the opportunity in 2020 to retain
and enlarge their share of suburban women voters they gained in 2018.
Two more debates, more reliable polls, and some current candidate
retirements from the field should provide us another report card on
the 2020 presidential contest, but as usual, I caution against
second-guessing the voters --- and I note the possibility of the
unexpected.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, July 2, 2019
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: What's Going On In This World?
The activity of the earth’s outer crust is curiously much like a lot
of human activity --- both have often unexpected bursts which
accumulate under their surfaces and suddenly appear. Volcanoes,
in nature and in civilization, take a long time to form, but in a
instant can dramatically change their environments.
There is always some geological activity, and always a dynamic to
human civilizations, but there are moments in each when there is an
intensification of forces which can signal coming drama and change.
There are, of course, major differences between geology and
humanity. Perhaps most notably, there is a distinction in duration.
The earth’s crust has existed for millions of years following the
planet’s birth as a roving fireball. The earth is a very tiny entity not
only in its solar system, but even more so in our own galaxy and the
seemingly endless number of galaxies in what is so vaguely
verbalized as ”the universe.” The numbers involved quickly go
beyond any true human understanding.
Humanity has been accumulating some interesting numbers of
its own --- particularly in the numbers of world population and in
the numbers of generations since “history” began about 10,000
years ago, and even more since our humanoid forbears appeared so
much longer a time before settlement and language created what we
call "civilization."
Much has been made recently about unusual activity above ground
in the atmosphere where hurricanes, floods. droughts, extreme heat
and cold, and all the dynamics of climate occur. A debate rages
about what are their causes, whether they are inevitable and natural
or human-made, and what (if anything) can be done about them.
But what about bursts of earthquakes, moving geological fault lines,
erupting volcanos and other activities from the earth’s core? And
what about bursts of revolutionary human activity, intensification of
technological change, and altered generational perception?
The former is way above my intellectual pay scale, so I can only note
the phenomena --- and leave meaningful understanding (if any is
possible) to our best scientific minds and imaginations. The latter
might also be beyond our understanding, but at least it can be
discussed in a language we all try to speak.
In recent times, every 40-50 years has brought some kind of intense
global human change in the form of notable national revolutions,
major and widespread wars, and extreme economic cycles.
Just as we have seen large clusters of tornadoes in certain regions,
melting ice at one pole and freezing at the other, unusual activity in
the earth’s geological plates both on land and beneath the oceans, etc.,
so there seems a cluster of extraordinary human activity all over
the globe.
Those with an ideological “axe to grind” suggest, of course, a
self-serving meaning to these phenomena. For example, those
opposed to democratic capitalism assert history is on their side.
(They, of course, pretend the collapse of Soviet communism, the
failure of socialist states, and just recently, the rebuke to a would-be
dictator by the voters in Turkey, didn’t happen.) Those opposed to
totalitarianism, on the other hand, try to ignore the reappearance of
dictators, violent suppression, intolerance and terrorism.
Just as in the decades after the turn to the 20th century, the 1930’s and
the 1960s and 70s, signals and omens are everywhere seen.
Alas, we do no have a Richter Scale, or any other device, to reliably
tell us what will happen next.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
of human activity --- both have often unexpected bursts which
accumulate under their surfaces and suddenly appear. Volcanoes,
in nature and in civilization, take a long time to form, but in a
instant can dramatically change their environments.
There is always some geological activity, and always a dynamic to
human civilizations, but there are moments in each when there is an
intensification of forces which can signal coming drama and change.
There are, of course, major differences between geology and
humanity. Perhaps most notably, there is a distinction in duration.
The earth’s crust has existed for millions of years following the
planet’s birth as a roving fireball. The earth is a very tiny entity not
only in its solar system, but even more so in our own galaxy and the
seemingly endless number of galaxies in what is so vaguely
verbalized as ”the universe.” The numbers involved quickly go
beyond any true human understanding.
Humanity has been accumulating some interesting numbers of
its own --- particularly in the numbers of world population and in
the numbers of generations since “history” began about 10,000
years ago, and even more since our humanoid forbears appeared so
much longer a time before settlement and language created what we
call "civilization."
Much has been made recently about unusual activity above ground
in the atmosphere where hurricanes, floods. droughts, extreme heat
and cold, and all the dynamics of climate occur. A debate rages
about what are their causes, whether they are inevitable and natural
or human-made, and what (if anything) can be done about them.
But what about bursts of earthquakes, moving geological fault lines,
erupting volcanos and other activities from the earth’s core? And
what about bursts of revolutionary human activity, intensification of
technological change, and altered generational perception?
The former is way above my intellectual pay scale, so I can only note
the phenomena --- and leave meaningful understanding (if any is
possible) to our best scientific minds and imaginations. The latter
might also be beyond our understanding, but at least it can be
discussed in a language we all try to speak.
In recent times, every 40-50 years has brought some kind of intense
global human change in the form of notable national revolutions,
major and widespread wars, and extreme economic cycles.
Just as we have seen large clusters of tornadoes in certain regions,
melting ice at one pole and freezing at the other, unusual activity in
the earth’s geological plates both on land and beneath the oceans, etc.,
so there seems a cluster of extraordinary human activity all over
the globe.
Those with an ideological “axe to grind” suggest, of course, a
self-serving meaning to these phenomena. For example, those
opposed to democratic capitalism assert history is on their side.
(They, of course, pretend the collapse of Soviet communism, the
failure of socialist states, and just recently, the rebuke to a would-be
dictator by the voters in Turkey, didn’t happen.) Those opposed to
totalitarianism, on the other hand, try to ignore the reappearance of
dictators, violent suppression, intolerance and terrorism.
Just as in the decades after the turn to the 20th century, the 1930’s and
the 1960s and 70s, signals and omens are everywhere seen.
Alas, we do no have a Richter Scale, or any other device, to reliably
tell us what will happen next.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Thursday, June 27, 2019
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: The TV Debates: Who Is Winning?
I have stressed the importance of the Democratic TV presidential
debates as a key opening of the 2020 election cycle, but now that they
have begun, I urge my readers to be cautious about the myriad of
interpretations (which have also already begun) about who wins or
loses them.
There are two main institutional forces which are competing for our
interpretive allegiance. First, there is the establishment media,
heavily biased toward the Democratic Party and relentlessly
anti-Trump. This media has trumpeted every radical move by the
so-called “progressive” wing of the party, and will continue to do so
in interpreting the debates, usually giving high marks to those
who espouse the leftward lurch. Second, there is the public relations
arm of each campaign which, no sooner has a debate concluded, are
touting their candidate as having having won. This is their job, but
few take them seriously.
A third institutional force which must be regarded with caution are
the polls --- the instant polls especially --- which history teaches us
are often misleading..
The non-establishment media, particularly the conservative and
pro-Trump media, need also be read or listened to with caution.
They have their bias, and are not likely to offer a fully fair analysis
of the Democratic debates, the liberal candidates, and their issues.
When round one is concluded in Miami, the debates will move to
Detroit for a second go-around. Then, new qualifications will
determine who appears in the next rounds of debates before the
primaries and caucuses begin in early February.
Winners and losers will emerge in time. I have suggested that the
majority of Democratic voters, while clearly liberal and anti-Trump,
have serious misgivings about some of the most radical ideas that
have been put forward by some candidates. My hypothesis will now
be tested in the true reactions to the debates and the candidates.
I always come back to the voters, those who actually show up and
vote --- they are the true test.
Not only Democrats are watching these debates. Republicans are, too,
and so are a great many undecideds, independents, centrists, and even
those in both parties who are not altogether happy with their choices.
The key to the TV debates is where they take the Democratic Party
in its epic second confrontation with President Trump.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
debates as a key opening of the 2020 election cycle, but now that they
have begun, I urge my readers to be cautious about the myriad of
interpretations (which have also already begun) about who wins or
loses them.
There are two main institutional forces which are competing for our
interpretive allegiance. First, there is the establishment media,
heavily biased toward the Democratic Party and relentlessly
anti-Trump. This media has trumpeted every radical move by the
so-called “progressive” wing of the party, and will continue to do so
in interpreting the debates, usually giving high marks to those
who espouse the leftward lurch. Second, there is the public relations
arm of each campaign which, no sooner has a debate concluded, are
touting their candidate as having having won. This is their job, but
few take them seriously.
A third institutional force which must be regarded with caution are
the polls --- the instant polls especially --- which history teaches us
are often misleading..
The non-establishment media, particularly the conservative and
pro-Trump media, need also be read or listened to with caution.
They have their bias, and are not likely to offer a fully fair analysis
of the Democratic debates, the liberal candidates, and their issues.
When round one is concluded in Miami, the debates will move to
Detroit for a second go-around. Then, new qualifications will
determine who appears in the next rounds of debates before the
primaries and caucuses begin in early February.
Winners and losers will emerge in time. I have suggested that the
majority of Democratic voters, while clearly liberal and anti-Trump,
have serious misgivings about some of the most radical ideas that
have been put forward by some candidates. My hypothesis will now
be tested in the true reactions to the debates and the candidates.
I always come back to the voters, those who actually show up and
vote --- they are the true test.
Not only Democrats are watching these debates. Republicans are, too,
and so are a great many undecideds, independents, centrists, and even
those in both parties who are not altogether happy with their choices.
The key to the TV debates is where they take the Democratic Party
in its epic second confrontation with President Trump.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Friday, June 21, 2019
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: A Solstice Week To Remember?
The summer solstice of 2019 has just occurred, but few Americans
take notice of this planetary event which is as old as our solar
system, and marks the calendar border between two of the four
earth seasons.
This year would seem no different in the U.S. The clocks of daylight
savings time were already changed weeks ago. It is an off-year in
national politics. (Baseball pennant races garner more interest than
distant elections.) Most public schools have finished their classes.
Americans everywhere are beginning to leave their homes for
vacations near and far.
And yet.....
The coming week promises much more drama and action than a
typical sleepy summer week.
First, the likely consequential Democratic Party presidential TV
debates will begin in Miami. With an historically large field of 24
major candidates, 20 of whom will participate in the first debate,
the personality of the 2020 cycle will form dramatically further, as
voters get to see for the first time most of the challengers to
President Donald Trump side by side, albeit not in a true debate
format.
Second, the U.S. supreme court will close its current term with
several very important decisions, some of which (such as a census
wording dispute) will have implications for 2020 --- and all of which
will have consequences for the future. With a new, and reputedly
more conservative, member, historic and split decisions are expected.
Third, an ongoing international controversy between the U.S. (and its
allies) and Iran has taken on an ominous aspect in the Straits of
Hormuz, and the coming week should see how this will develop.
Not yet to be resolved, but just underway are unexpected elections in
Great Britain and Israel for prime minister, the results of which
could significantly affect U.S. foreign policy. As well, certain trade
negotiations with China, involving tariffs on both sides, will be
continuing --- with tremendous consequences for not only
international trade, but also for U.S farmers, businesses and their
employees.
That is a lot of potential events, decisions, and news headlines for
what is usually a quiet summer week.
Perhaps those who consider the solstice a big deal should be given
their due this year.
Stonehenge, anyone?
_______________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
take notice of this planetary event which is as old as our solar
system, and marks the calendar border between two of the four
earth seasons.
This year would seem no different in the U.S. The clocks of daylight
savings time were already changed weeks ago. It is an off-year in
national politics. (Baseball pennant races garner more interest than
distant elections.) Most public schools have finished their classes.
Americans everywhere are beginning to leave their homes for
vacations near and far.
And yet.....
The coming week promises much more drama and action than a
typical sleepy summer week.
First, the likely consequential Democratic Party presidential TV
debates will begin in Miami. With an historically large field of 24
major candidates, 20 of whom will participate in the first debate,
the personality of the 2020 cycle will form dramatically further, as
voters get to see for the first time most of the challengers to
President Donald Trump side by side, albeit not in a true debate
format.
Second, the U.S. supreme court will close its current term with
several very important decisions, some of which (such as a census
wording dispute) will have implications for 2020 --- and all of which
will have consequences for the future. With a new, and reputedly
more conservative, member, historic and split decisions are expected.
Third, an ongoing international controversy between the U.S. (and its
allies) and Iran has taken on an ominous aspect in the Straits of
Hormuz, and the coming week should see how this will develop.
Not yet to be resolved, but just underway are unexpected elections in
Great Britain and Israel for prime minister, the results of which
could significantly affect U.S. foreign policy. As well, certain trade
negotiations with China, involving tariffs on both sides, will be
continuing --- with tremendous consequences for not only
international trade, but also for U.S farmers, businesses and their
employees.
That is a lot of potential events, decisions, and news headlines for
what is usually a quiet summer week.
Perhaps those who consider the solstice a big deal should be given
their due this year.
Stonehenge, anyone?
_______________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Sunday, June 16, 2019
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Starting Line-Ups
In an earlier post, I suggested that the first Democratic presidential
TV debates in Miami with ten candidates on the stage for successive
nights might present a variety of scenarios depending on whom
would be in each session. We now know that a full 20 candidates will
appear (4 have been excluded), and we know who will appear on each
night.
Since it was presumably the chance of a “lottery” which produced
the two line-ups, what might we say about them?
First, the “luck of the draw” has resulted in most of the so far
leading candidates appearing in the second-night debate, including
Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris. Only
Elizabeth Warren, who also has had consistently notable poll
numbers, appears on the stage in the first debate.
The second debate is likely to draw a somewhat larger audience for
its drama of frontrunner Joe Biden defending himself against
confrontations with Sanders, Buttigieg and Harris. Although the
latter will probably focus on Biden, it will be every man or woman for
him/herself, and some side punches can be expected, not to mention
Biden’s counterpunches. Candidates Michael Bennet, Jay Inslee, John
Hickenlooper, Eric Swalwell, Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang
--- none of whom are known for histrionics --- will be especially
challenged to make an impression on the TV audience, but it also
presents them with an opportunity if they can somehow rise to the
occasion.
In the first debate, the candidates (especially Warren) might also
make frontunners Biden and Sanders targets, but lacking the former
vice president and the Vermont senator present, it could well also
be a debate in which each of the candidates tries most to upstage the
others. Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke, Bill DeBlasio, Julian Castro,
Kristin Gillebrand and Amy Kobuchar each have reputations for
attention-getting --- and this will be a real test of their reputed
skills. Tim Ryan, Jay Inslee, and John Delaney --- unless they offer
some surprises --- could find themselves quite overshadowed.
Wit, debating skills, stage presence and knowledge of the issues
will be factors in determining TV audience reactions. Derisive
scorn of President Trump, his policies, his twitters and calls for
his impeachment will be inevitable, but it will be interesting to see
who can do this with the most skill and originality. In fact, if most
of the candidates seem like they are just echoing each other, the
overall effect of this initial side-by-side public exposure of the
candidates to the public at large might not be what Democratic
Party leaders and strategists are hoping for.
These insiders are known to wish that the historically large field
becomes much smaller quickly --- presumably before Iowa, New
Hampshire and Super Tuesday. They know that a long and divisive
nomination battle almost certainly helps the Republican cause,
particularly in affecting the key decisions of independent and
undecided voters. But this is the 2020 cycle with its uncertainties
of so many ambitious candidates, uncontrollable social media
and an unpredictable communications specialist in the White
House.
There are four announced candidates who will not be in the first
debate, but considering the low bar for qualifying,they have no one
to blame but themselves. At least one or two of them might try to
make it for the second debate in Detroit in July.
Meanwhile, the candidates and their advisors are furiously
strategizing and gaming the two debate sessions in Miami. There
will be surprises. Poll numbers afterwards will change. Dropouts
might occur.
The 2020 cycle has begun in earnest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman All rights reserved.
TV debates in Miami with ten candidates on the stage for successive
nights might present a variety of scenarios depending on whom
would be in each session. We now know that a full 20 candidates will
appear (4 have been excluded), and we know who will appear on each
night.
Since it was presumably the chance of a “lottery” which produced
the two line-ups, what might we say about them?
First, the “luck of the draw” has resulted in most of the so far
leading candidates appearing in the second-night debate, including
Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris. Only
Elizabeth Warren, who also has had consistently notable poll
numbers, appears on the stage in the first debate.
The second debate is likely to draw a somewhat larger audience for
its drama of frontrunner Joe Biden defending himself against
confrontations with Sanders, Buttigieg and Harris. Although the
latter will probably focus on Biden, it will be every man or woman for
him/herself, and some side punches can be expected, not to mention
Biden’s counterpunches. Candidates Michael Bennet, Jay Inslee, John
Hickenlooper, Eric Swalwell, Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang
--- none of whom are known for histrionics --- will be especially
challenged to make an impression on the TV audience, but it also
presents them with an opportunity if they can somehow rise to the
occasion.
In the first debate, the candidates (especially Warren) might also
make frontunners Biden and Sanders targets, but lacking the former
vice president and the Vermont senator present, it could well also
be a debate in which each of the candidates tries most to upstage the
others. Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke, Bill DeBlasio, Julian Castro,
Kristin Gillebrand and Amy Kobuchar each have reputations for
attention-getting --- and this will be a real test of their reputed
skills. Tim Ryan, Jay Inslee, and John Delaney --- unless they offer
some surprises --- could find themselves quite overshadowed.
Wit, debating skills, stage presence and knowledge of the issues
will be factors in determining TV audience reactions. Derisive
scorn of President Trump, his policies, his twitters and calls for
his impeachment will be inevitable, but it will be interesting to see
who can do this with the most skill and originality. In fact, if most
of the candidates seem like they are just echoing each other, the
overall effect of this initial side-by-side public exposure of the
candidates to the public at large might not be what Democratic
Party leaders and strategists are hoping for.
These insiders are known to wish that the historically large field
becomes much smaller quickly --- presumably before Iowa, New
Hampshire and Super Tuesday. They know that a long and divisive
nomination battle almost certainly helps the Republican cause,
particularly in affecting the key decisions of independent and
undecided voters. But this is the 2020 cycle with its uncertainties
of so many ambitious candidates, uncontrollable social media
and an unpredictable communications specialist in the White
House.
There are four announced candidates who will not be in the first
debate, but considering the low bar for qualifying,they have no one
to blame but themselves. At least one or two of them might try to
make it for the second debate in Detroit in July.
Meanwhile, the candidates and their advisors are furiously
strategizing and gaming the two debate sessions in Miami. There
will be surprises. Poll numbers afterwards will change. Dropouts
might occur.
The 2020 cycle has begun in earnest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman All rights reserved.
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: What If.....?
There are two kinds of “what ifs” in politics --- those which speculate
about events which have already taken place, and those which
speculate about future events.
I rarely take much interest in the former because they are primarily
just intellectual games, but on the other hand, I find the latter much
more interesting because, while speculative, they sometimes actually
take place.
There are many battlegrounds in the upcoming 2020 election cycle,
and more general interest exists probably in the presidential and
U.S. senate elections. Democrats took control of the U.S. house in 2018,
and are likely to keep control of that body next year, albeit they will
need to defend several 2018 winners in competitive districts.
One district Democrats need not fear losing is Minnesota’s 5th
District which includes the city of Minneapolis and one of its largest
liberal suburbs. The district is reliably Democratic (the party in this
state is called Democratic-Farmer-Labor or DFL) which consistently
receive about 75% of the vote. Republicans and independents usually
receive about 25%.
MN-5’s current member of Congress is Ilhan Omar, a young Somali-
American first elected in 2018, and who has become well-known
nationally for many of her controversial views on both domestic and
foreign policy. I think it is fair to say that a clear majority of 5th
district voters agree with her on most of her domestic views (as is the
case in liberal cities across the nation), but some of her foreign policy
views and community identity views have not only aroused strong
opposition among local GOP and independent voters, but among many
DFL voters in various religious communities who do not share her
opinions about the Middle East and other international hotspots.
Congresswoman Omar has presented the DFL leadership with an
ongoing problem. Her own seat is presumably safe, but she has
become a lightning rod in the rest of the state where her views are
often perceived as radical or extremist. Even among the two new
DFL congressional incumbents in neighboring suburban districts
(MN-2 and MN-3) there is reluctance to challenge her controversial
statements publicly --- for fear of backlash.
Obviously, no Republican or no independent could defeat her in
2020. Although there is much talk of challenging her in the DFL
primary, no serious challenger has so far been willing to go against
her and the DFL state party which backs her.
But there is one DFL figure who lives in the district, and does not
owe anything to the DFL establishment --- which abandoned him in
That is former Senator Al Franken who many feel was “thrown
under the bus” in 2017 over controversies not considered sufficient
to force him to resign.
Franken is known to wish to restore his political reputation and
make a comeback. His problem with that quest is that there are no
current or foreseeable openings in Minnesota at the U.S. senate or
gubernatorial levels.
But what if Al Franken decided to challenge Ilhan Omar in the
2020 DFL primary?
I think the answer is that Franken would win. Local Republicans
I have talked to, while disagreeing with Franken’s domestic views,
have told me that they would vote for him, and even go into the
DFL primary to do so. Many DFLers in the religious community
would also do so, as would the many other DFL voters who have
become embarrassed by Rep. Omar’s chronic public controversies.
Franken remains popular among many 5th District DFLers, many
of whom feel he was unfairly pushed out of office.
What makes it attractive for Franken to run is that winning would
redeem him from his 2017 debacle. If he won, he would also likely
be in the majority, would receive important committee assignments,
and although a first-termer in 2021, would be a celebrity figure in the
U.S. house. Also, by returning to public service, he could take his time
to run for higher office should a vacancy occur.
I have no evidence that Al Franken is considering this race, but
rumors about it were circulating at a political event I recently
attended.
Although they would be rid of Ilhan Omar if Franken won,
Republicans would lose a controversial target that helps them
statewide --- the prospects are thus complicated for the GOP.
So it’s just a ”what if” --- but a fascinating one, among many others,
in the momentous national elections coming relatively soon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman. All rights reservd.
about events which have already taken place, and those which
speculate about future events.
I rarely take much interest in the former because they are primarily
just intellectual games, but on the other hand, I find the latter much
more interesting because, while speculative, they sometimes actually
take place.
There are many battlegrounds in the upcoming 2020 election cycle,
and more general interest exists probably in the presidential and
U.S. senate elections. Democrats took control of the U.S. house in 2018,
and are likely to keep control of that body next year, albeit they will
need to defend several 2018 winners in competitive districts.
One district Democrats need not fear losing is Minnesota’s 5th
District which includes the city of Minneapolis and one of its largest
liberal suburbs. The district is reliably Democratic (the party in this
state is called Democratic-Farmer-Labor or DFL) which consistently
receive about 75% of the vote. Republicans and independents usually
receive about 25%.
MN-5’s current member of Congress is Ilhan Omar, a young Somali-
American first elected in 2018, and who has become well-known
nationally for many of her controversial views on both domestic and
foreign policy. I think it is fair to say that a clear majority of 5th
district voters agree with her on most of her domestic views (as is the
case in liberal cities across the nation), but some of her foreign policy
views and community identity views have not only aroused strong
opposition among local GOP and independent voters, but among many
DFL voters in various religious communities who do not share her
opinions about the Middle East and other international hotspots.
Congresswoman Omar has presented the DFL leadership with an
ongoing problem. Her own seat is presumably safe, but she has
become a lightning rod in the rest of the state where her views are
often perceived as radical or extremist. Even among the two new
DFL congressional incumbents in neighboring suburban districts
(MN-2 and MN-3) there is reluctance to challenge her controversial
statements publicly --- for fear of backlash.
Obviously, no Republican or no independent could defeat her in
2020. Although there is much talk of challenging her in the DFL
primary, no serious challenger has so far been willing to go against
her and the DFL state party which backs her.
But there is one DFL figure who lives in the district, and does not
owe anything to the DFL establishment --- which abandoned him in
That is former Senator Al Franken who many feel was “thrown
under the bus” in 2017 over controversies not considered sufficient
to force him to resign.
Franken is known to wish to restore his political reputation and
make a comeback. His problem with that quest is that there are no
current or foreseeable openings in Minnesota at the U.S. senate or
gubernatorial levels.
But what if Al Franken decided to challenge Ilhan Omar in the
2020 DFL primary?
I think the answer is that Franken would win. Local Republicans
I have talked to, while disagreeing with Franken’s domestic views,
have told me that they would vote for him, and even go into the
DFL primary to do so. Many DFLers in the religious community
would also do so, as would the many other DFL voters who have
become embarrassed by Rep. Omar’s chronic public controversies.
Franken remains popular among many 5th District DFLers, many
of whom feel he was unfairly pushed out of office.
What makes it attractive for Franken to run is that winning would
redeem him from his 2017 debacle. If he won, he would also likely
be in the majority, would receive important committee assignments,
and although a first-termer in 2021, would be a celebrity figure in the
U.S. house. Also, by returning to public service, he could take his time
to run for higher office should a vacancy occur.
I have no evidence that Al Franken is considering this race, but
rumors about it were circulating at a political event I recently
attended.
Although they would be rid of Ilhan Omar if Franken won,
Republicans would lose a controversial target that helps them
statewide --- the prospects are thus complicated for the GOP.
So it’s just a ”what if” --- but a fascinating one, among many others,
in the momentous national elections coming relatively soon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2019 by Barry Casselman. All rights reservd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)