Democratic Candidate for President 2020 - 2 Electability

Dear Friends,

I am driven to write by the constant media reports and conversations about who is the most electable Democratic candidate for President.  Virtually daily there is some new article or analysis in the media attempting to define "electability".  Following are just a few that I have read lately:

"Nobody Knows Anything About 'Electability'" by Peter Beinart in the Atlantic (here)
"the electability trap" by Linda Hirshman in The Washington Post (here)
"The Problem With 'Electability'" by Perry Bacon, Je. at FiveThirtyEight (here)
"Opinion: The Real Electable Democrat is Kamala Harris" by Bakari Sellers at BuzzFeed.News (here)  [I am not supporting or opposing Kamala Harris, but I found the article interesting.]
"How to Choose the Most Electable Democrat in 2020" by Bill Scher at Politico (here)

There are three things that I want to highlight from all of the discussions about "electability".

First, who a person views as "electable" is phrased as others will not support that candidate because she is a woman, because she/he is a person of color, because he/she is too far left/right, etc.  Essentially what that person is saying is I'm not racist, sexist, etc. but the rest of the electorate is.  This approach essentially means that straight, white, Judaeo/Christian, upper class, male centrists are electable and others are not.

Second, often an electable candidate is defined as a candidate who can attract swing voters.  I am sure there are probably a few million swing voters, but the person to attract is the non-voter.  The percentage of eligible voters voting hit a high in the 2008 Presidential election with about 62% of the the eligible voters actually voting.  In the 2016 Presidential election 59.2% of eligible voters voted for President. In 2016 there were just about 231 million eligible voters which means that the three percentage point difference in the eligible voters that voted represented almost 7 million voters.
Elections are won by turning out the people who will vote for your candidate.  There is no doubt that if 62% of the voters had turned out in 2016 instead of the 59% that did, Hillary Clinton would be President now.
There are approximately 25 developed countries with higher voter turnout than the United States, with Belgium topping the list with 87% of its voting age population voting.  The United States has about 250,000,000 age eligible voters.  If 87% of those people voted in 2016, we would have had almost 81,000,000 more voters.  If a candidate can get 10 million of those people to the polls, that candidate will win.

Third, the Democratic establishment has been pushing "electable" candidates on us for years.  Since the 1976 election, three Democratic candidates have won the presidency and five Democratic candidates have lost the presidency when running for a first term.
The Democratic candidates that have won are:
Jimmy Carter - age 52 when ran, 4 years as a Georgia state senator and 4 years as the governor of Georgia
Bill Clinton - age 46 when ran, 2 years as the Attorney General of Arkansas and 11 years as governor of Arkansas
Barack Obama - age 47 when ran, 7 years as an Illinois state senator and 3 years as US Senator from Illinois
The Democratic candidates that lost are:
Walter Mondale - age 56 when ran, 4 years as Attorney General of Minnesota, 12 years as US Senator from Minnesota and 4 years as Vice President
Michael Dukakis - age 55 when ran, 8 years in the Massachusetts House of Representatives and 12 years as governor of Massachusetts
Al Gore - age 52 when ran, 8 years a member of the House of Representatives, 8 years as US Senator from Tennessee and 8 years as Vice President
John Kerry - age 61 when ran, decorated Vietnam War veteran and 28 years as US Senator from Massachusetts
Hillary Clinton - age 69 when ran, 8 years as First Lady, 8 years as US Senator from New York and 4 years as Secretary of State (she was far and away the most experienced and qualified person to run for President probably forever)

What are the lessons from this data?
Democratic presidential candidates who are political outsiders win.  All of the losing candidates had at least 20 years of public service before running for President (if you count Hillary Clinton's time as First Lady).  Except for Dukakis, all had been US Senators for at least 8 years.
The oldest winner was 52 when he ran and the youngest loser was 52 when he ran.  Based on this sample younger candidates do much better.
Except for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, all are white men, and in that category four lost and two won.
I would categorize all of these candidates as to the right of center in the Democratic Party and in that category five lost and three won.
So from this data one could say that a younger candidate who has not been in public office for very long is the best bet.

Next time you talk about the electability of a candidate or you talk to someone else about it or you read/hear an analysis in the media, ask what do you really mean by electability.  Since the "experts" continually get it wrong about who is the most electable candidate, please do not rely on those "experts".  If an "expert" thought that Donald Trump was not electable and Hillary Clinton was, there is no reason for you to give that "expert's" opinion any weight in your decision making.

The most electable Democratic candidate is the one who can attract a lot of the nonvoters without losing too many of the traditional Democratic voters who voted for Hillary Clinton.  Simply holding on to those voters who voted for Hillary Clinton and adding a few swing voters will not even come close to assuring victory in the general election.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

War v. Peace, Status Quo v. Real Change and Obfuscation v. Transparency

Dear Friends,

The debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night could not have done a better job of highlighting the choice that we have between these two candidates and their policies, opinions and positions.

War v. Peace

On foreign policy, except for a short discussion about NATO where the candidates are in basic agreement, the Middle East was the focus.  Senator Sanders laid out a very clear and articulate position that acknowledged the right of Israel to exist in peace and security, but also acknowledged the same right for the Palestinian people.  Senator Sanders made it clear that the Israeli  response to the latest conflict in Gaza was an over-reaction by Israel.  Secretary Clinton refused to acknowledge that Israel over-reacted.  You cannot achieve peace between Israel and Palestine until you acknowledge the atrocities on both sides.  Senator Sanders' approach is the only one that has any chance of bringing peace.

With respect to Syria, Secretary Clinton, who has frequently chastised Senator Sanders for criticizing President Obama, laid the blame for the Syrian situation on President Obama because he did not take her advice to more aggressively arm the "friendly forces" fighting against Assad and establishing a no-fly zone which virtually all experts say would lead to more US troops fighting in Syria.  She also refused to take any responsibility for the debacle in Libya.  President Obama has said that one of the biggest mistakes of his Administration was not planning for what happens after Gaddafi is deposed.  Secretary Clinton refused to accept any responsibility even though she was a strong proponent within the Obama Administration for regime change in Libya.  She blamed the Libyan people for failing to take her advice and accept American troops in Libya.

We have a clear choice - Secretary Clinton, a clear hawk or Senator Sanders, a thoughtful person who will acknowledge reality, seek peace and use force only as a last resort.

Status Quo v. Real Change

On issue after issue, it is clear that Secretary Clinton supports the status quo, with only incremental changes, and it is equally clear that Senator Sanders believes we need big and substantive changes now.  This difference represents a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party.  When Secretary Clinton says that Senator Sanders is not a real Democrat, what she means is that he is not part of the move to the right, Republican light, Democratic Party establishment founded by her husband.  There is a great sentence going around the internet - "There is only one moderate Republican running in this election, and she is running as a Democrat."  I have said before that President Obama is about as far right as President Eisenhower was.  Secretary Clinton is clearly to the right of President Eisenhower particularly on the use of force.  President Bill Clinton formed an unholy alliance with big business.  Secretary Clinton will continue that alliance.  Senator Sanders will break up that alliance.

Secretary Clinton claims that she wants to get to universal healthcare coverage but has only plans to add an incremental number of people and attacks Senator Sanders' plan for Medicare for all.  She says he would throw out Obamacare which is not true.  He would keep Obamacare until the Medicare for all was in place.  She wants incremental change and calls it pragmatism.  She says she supports the movement for a $15 minimum wage, yet she refuses to support Senator Sanders' bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 instead she supports a competing bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour.  She claims that she wants to protect the economy from another melt down but continues to fight against breaking up the big banks even though they are bigger now than before the great recession and the Fed and FDIC have recently called them too big.  She continues to say we should regulate them but, in an implicit criticism of President Obama, says that she would be tougher.  However, she fails to acknowledge that the big banks have successfully stalled on developing "living wills" for more than five years.  She says that she stood up to the big banks before the great recession but fails to acknowledge that she completely failed in changing their behavior.  The time has come to stop coddling the big banks and break them up.

She uses the overturning of the Citizens United case as one of her two litmus tests for any Supreme Court nominee and states that big money is corrupting our political system but refuses to acknowledge that it has any impact on her.  Apparently she is immune to all the pressures that other politicians are not immune to.  She cannot answer the simple question of why she will not release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Wall Street.  Her only response is that she will not release them unless everybody does, obviously including all Republican candidates.  Senator Sanders has not made closed door speeches to Wall Street.  The only logical conclusion that I can reach is that she would be embarrassed by those speeches if the transcripts became public.

The most important area where Secretary Clinton's incremental only approach to change cannot be accepted is with respect to climate change.  With every new report we are closer to a cataclysmic tipping point than was previously thought.  The time for incremental action has passed.  We need big change now.  Senator Sanders would ban fracking, would ban further drilling on federal lands, would place a tax on carbon and would focus completely on moving to sustainable, renewable energy.  Secretary Clinton promoted fracking around the world as Secretary of State, she refuses to say she would ban fracking, she refuses to say she would stop drilling on federal lands, and she refuses to say that she would support a carbon tax.  She says we need to move to sustainable energy but will do it in a "practical" and "possible" way, which is to say with small incremental steps.  That approach will destroy the earth for my grandchildren and is unacceptable.

Of course the debate was full of moments when Secretary Clinton obfuscated the facts while Senator Sanders was transparent about his positions.  While saying she would fight climate change, she refused to indicate immediate actions she would take that would have a significant impact, while saying she supports a $15 per hour federal minimum wage, she actually supports a move to $12 per hour, while claiming she supports Senator Sanders' policy of extending the life of the social security trust fund she refuses to support raising the income cap on social security taxes or endorsing any other particular approach, while saying she would be tough on the big banks, she refuses to support doing anything more than have the regulators be "tough" which has failed miserably so far and while saying she will work for peace between Israel and Palestine, she refuses to acknowledge the Israeli atrocities only the Palestinian ones.

She also continues to distort Senator Sanders' record.  She claimed that most of the gun deaths in New York resulted from guns from Vermont which is absurd.  While acknowledging that her statement was incorrect, she refused to apologize.  Instead she made the even more absurd statement that Senator Sanders does the bidding of the NRA in the Senate.  That statement is blatantly false as everyone including the NRA knows since it gives him a D- rating.

She claims that Senator Sanders could not answer the questions in the New York Daily News interview correctly even about breaking up the big banks.  I have actually read that interview in total and either Secretary Clinton is lying or she has not read the interview.  But you do not have to believe me, you can listen to this segment of Democracy Now today (here), it is entitled, "Juan González: Clinton Has 'Really Distorted' What Happened When NY Daily News Interviewed Sanders".  Senator Sanders answered the questions of the interviewer precisely and accurately.  The question to which he answered that he didn't know was whether the Fed has the right to break up the banks.  That is a correct statement, nobody knows for sure if the Fed does have that authority.  When asked about the President's authority to break up the banks, he correctly stated the process under Dodd-Frank by which the President can break up the big banks including that in the end the banks themselves determine exactly what assets to shed, etc.

We have a clear choice and in my opinion Senator Sanders is by far the better choice.

I should also point out that Senator Sanders will win a general election against any Republican while Secretary Clinton is quite vulnerable against any Republican other than Trump.  In the most recent polls reported by RealClearPolitics (here), both Clinton and Sanders beat Trump although Sanders beats him by quite a bit more.  The interesting results are that Clinton is in a statistical tie with Cruz beating him by 1 point in one poll and 3 points in another poll.  Sanders on the other hand defeats Cruz by 12 points in both those polls.  With respect to Kasich, Clinton loses to him by 9 and 6 points while Sanders beats him by 4 and 5 points.

Sanders is by far the better candidate both because of his positions and because of his electability.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

The Pragmatic Case for Bernie Sanders

Dear Friends,

I just read a great article by Christopher Cook on theatlantic.com (here) entitled "The Pragmatic Case for Bernie Sanders".  You really should read the entire article.

Mr. Cook starts by rebutting the claim that Hillary Clinton is more electable than Bernie Sanders.  Since polls today show that Bernie does better against the potential Republican candidates, the Clinton campaign says that Bernie Sanders will be destroyed by negative ads from the Republicans.  Needless to say, the Republicans hate Hillary Clinton at least as much if not more than they hate Bernie Sanders.  What I think is important is that all that most people know about Bernie Sanders today is that he is a democratic socialist so it is unlikely that Republicans attacking him on that basis will hurt significantly more than it does today.  Plus when people listen to his positions, they like them.

Mr. Cook then challenges that Clinton campaign position that being pragmatic will get progressive things done.  History does not support that claim.  Mr. Cook points out that President Obama was continually moving to the center to try to get Republican support and all that happened is that the Republicans moved farther to the right.  President Bill Clinton was another President that moved to the center or right of center to be pragmatic and get things done and look what happened.

The Clinton pragmatism frame is a strangely naïve and fatalistic misjudging of political culture and dynamics. During most of his eight years in office, President Obama has tacked to the center in hopes of bipartisan compromise on everything from gun control to the budget, only to be met by relentless Republican obstruction, even labeled a “socialist dictator.” Republicans did much the same during Bill Clinton’s first term—pushing him more deeply into the political center, where, with plenty of support from Hillary, President Clinton and the Gingrich Congress gutted welfare, enacted a deeply compromised crime bill, and reversed bank regulations (something Hillary is OK with even after the financial crisis).

Mr. Cook continues by discussing how real change happens.

On the other side of the ledger, history shows that political and social change emanate from persistent pressure—organizing and arguing for a more just world, not settling for what is deemed “realistic” before getting to the negotiating table. Remember when gay rights and gay marriage were “unrealistic”? Remember when voting rights, desegregation, and other basic justice were far from “pragmatic”? They became real through years of dedicated, principled, idealism—by insisting the unrealistic become real.   

If liberals and progressives support a $15 per-hour minimum wage, universally accessible health care, fair taxes on corporations and wealth, and meaningful reforms of Wall Street and campaign finance, they should elect a president who actually fights for these things. Sanders has spent his whole political life in pursuit of these ideals, and his campaign has moved these conversations to the fore; Clinton’s record on the other hand shows a consistent pattern of following, not leading on these issues. Clinton’s brand of pragmatism surrenders progressive change to centrism even before negotiations begin.

Hillary Clinton asserts that she is the one who has demonstrated real leadership.  However, the records of Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders do not support this assertion.  As Mr. Cook notes.

On the question of leadership, Clinton’s other central campaign theme is her record of experience. As first lady, Clinton failed at health-care reform. She never pushed for single-payer health care and never built a coalition for anything beyond a compromised managed-care system. She also supported three of Bill Clinton’s signature measures, which all proved disastrous: welfare rollback, which unraveled safety-net supports for poor families, low-income women, and millions of working-class Americans; the omnibus crime bill with its three strikes and mandatory minimum sentencing, which contributed to a generation of long-term, largely African American inmates and felons; and NAFTA, which helped impoverish millions of Mexican and Central America farmers, leading to mass migration and social and economic upheaval. 

In one undistinguished term as U.S. senator, Clinton opposed gay marriage, voted for the Iraq war, and supported the Patriot Act, among other positions. As secretary of state, while logging impressive global mileage, Clinton pushed foraggressive regime change in Libya, and she worked hard to expand corporate military contracts and fracking abroad. Whether the American public finds her record favorable or not, it is not one of progressive, forward-looking leadership. 

Sanders has consistently demonstrated leadership, speaking out, introducing legislation, and laying the political groundwork on a wide array of issues, including: gay rights (long before they gained mainstream support), workers’ rights and union rights, universal single-payer health care, family and medical leave protections, and expansions of Social Security. On nearly every major issue—labor and economic justice, to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, welfare reform, NAFTA, the Keystone XL pipeline, and the Transpacific Partnership—Sanders has taken clear consistent stands, while Clinton has waffled, backtracked, and leaned to the center.

Mr. Cook closes his article as follows:

What makes change happen, history and current U.S. politics show, is principled and courageous commitment and integrity—not Clinton’s fatalistic pragmatism, which insists that pushing for more is unrealistic and therefore capitulates before the fight even starts. On the other hand, it is entirely pragmatic to expect a President Bernie Sanders to fight hard for the justice and equality issues he has championed his entire political life—giving these ideas a chance, rather than no chance at all.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal