In Case You Missed It (v25)

Relaxing and not panicking about Corona (the virus or the beer) and watching college basketball, and waiting for the polls to close in an hour and a half or so down in South Carolina... what better time to look back at this week's posts?

This week's Sunday School was a review of part of the panel discussion on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. The panel was split - two Republicans and two Dems, and while the Rs seemed to be on the same page, the same was not true for the Ds. Rahm Emanuel was one of them; the other was Yvette Simpson, the CEO of the Burlington, VT-based Democracy for America, a progressive PAC.

There was lots of talk about That Guy From Vermont, him being the front-runner and all. Among the comments?

The "broader point," Fagen said, is the lack of vetting for TGFV. "Now, he's the front-runner, and it is coming to him. And we're starting to see the drip, drip of comments about communist leaders around the world and socialist leaders around the world..." We'll have to see how he stands up to having the spotlight on him, she said.

Keep that point in mind as you read the post on debate winners and losers - you'll hear it again...

On Tuesday (before the debate, of course), I tossed out debate drinking game keywords. I had to work at it for a bit to some up with some; as I noted in the post, I was

...trying to stay away from the really obvious drinking game words, of which there many: Medicare for All, billionaires, 1%, Super Tuesday, socialism, African-Americans, coronavirus/COVID-19, frontrunner, and the like.

You can see what I ended up with in the post; how did my list compare with yours?

Wednesday's first post came from The Update Desk, and recapped of how I did with my debate drinking game. Now, before I go any further, I didn't really drink each time my keywords popped up during the two hour slug-fest, because if I had, I'd likely be needing treatment.  Here's a look at how I did.

I actually had a well-hydrated night, looking at my pre-debate list of keywords.  Here's how I did, per the debate transcript. Bolded words are winners.

• Castro, Cuba, Fidel, communism. There were multiple Cuba references and one reference to communist countries, so I'm taking a sip - but not a Big Gulp, since I'm an anti-0besity New Yorker - on that last one.
• Jim Clyburn - he's the most powerful Democrat in South Carolina, and both Klobuchar and That Guy from Vermont dropped his name.

On in the second post on Wednesday, I offered up what the pundits had to say about the winners and losers of the South Carolina debate. I didn't necessarily agree with them, except on the moderators and voters being losers - again - because we're having cage fights instead of policy debates. But I guess that's what we like now, I don't know.  Here's how folks at The Hill looked at things.

From The Hill:

• Winners:  Papa Joe (Above all, Biden sought to portray himself as someone with the political and strategic chops to get things done rather than merely talk about aspirations),Warren (“I don’t care how much money Mayor Bloomberg has,” she said, “The core of the Democratic Party will never trust him.") and TGFV (Sanders won on Tuesday by not obviously losing.)

They weren't the only ones with that take on things, but what a low threshold for TGFV - just don't blow it, and you'll be a winner... Sigh.

In Thursday's Email of the Week post, I took a slightly different approach, it being a debate week and all. Instead of one winner, I published the first post-debate email from each of the five candidates I'm still following.  And, in addition to that, I provided this week's stats. Take a look.

Here's how the week went, with 124 emails filling my mailbox. No surprise (again) that Mayor Pete was the volume winner (again), or that Bloomy brought up the  rear (again).

Yesterday's TGIF brought us a little bit and of that, including some endorsements picked up by Papa Joe and Bloomy, some bizarre comments from Mick Mulvaney, and some fun with NY's Sonofa Gov.  And, there was this.

Speaking of Bloomy, he had to spend a bit of time defending himself in a PBS NewsHour interview with Judy Woodruff, on Muslim surveillance practices in NYC after 9/11. I half expected the Rs to be supporting him on this, given how readily they fell in line with Trump's travel ban, but I haven't seen much support for him.

So, now you're up to date on this week's veritable pastiche. Subscribe, if you're so inclined, in the Instant Gratification box on the right sidebar, and you'll never miss a post.

See you tomorrow for Sunday School, where I'm sure two topics will be the South Carolina primary, and the coronavirus...

TGIF 2/28/20

Want to make a list with me? Let's give it a whirl!

Mick Mulvaney, the president's acting Chief of Staff, has suggested that the media should be talking about the president's  relationship with his youngest son, instead of talking about the COVID-19 outbreak. Seriously.

Criticizing the media for wanting Trump "to be this terrible monster," Mulvany provided some  info about the president checking in with Barron by phone, and said the media would never show that side of him. And he's right.

There's little about Barron in the media - by design. It's because the legitimate media know that president's kids are off limits, and because they know that the mere mention of the name Barron - nothing about the child himself, mind you, but simply using the homophones Barron and baron in a sentence - caused an uproar on the Trump News Network. Mulvaney better have his bags packed.

And of course, when I say the "legitimate media" know better, that doesn't include Medal of Freedom honoree Rush Limbaugh, and his comments about a certain 'dog' in the White House. However, sometimes a 'dog' has its day.

Here's a recent tweet from Chelsea Clinton, referencing Limbaugh.

Where else can we go to add to this week's list? Let's see... 

Papa Joe picked up some endorsements for his presidential bid, including from SC Rep. Jim Clyburn, the highest-ranking African-American in the House, and Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, who was Hillary Clinton's running mate in '16. That Guy From Vermont got a big one this week, too: former presidential candidate Marianne Williamson. And, so did Bloomy, getting the Clint Eastwood nod in a Wall Street Journal interview last week that I just stumbled upon. Here's the relevant part of the interview: 

As for the domestic political scene, Mr. Eastwood seems disheartened. “The politics has gotten so ornery,” he says, hunching his shoulders in resignation. He approves of “certain things that Trump’s done” but wishes the president would act “in a more genteel way, without tweeting and calling people names. I would personally like for him to not bring himself to that level.” As he drives me back to my hotel, he expresses an affinity for another former mayor: “The best thing we could do is just get Mike Bloomberg in there.”

Kudos to the givers and receivers there.

Speaking of Bloomy, he had to spend a bit of time defending himself in a PBS NewsHour interview with Judy Woodruff, on Muslim surveillance practices in NYC after 9/11. I half expected the Rs to be supporting him on this, given how readily they fell in line with Trump's travel ban, but I haven't seen much support for him.

Closer to home, NY's Sonofa Gov Andrew Cuomo is planning to follow what's left of the Grateful Dead across the country on his 'Marijuana Tour' - or, at least, that's the first thing I thought of when I saw these headlines: Where Cuomo could go on his cross-country weed tour; Cuomo Plans Marijuana Tour; Checking out the joint; and Cuomo Takes a Weed Tour, just a nickel bag of headlines that are out there.

But what he's really doing is trying to learn from states that have legalized pot to figure out how we can legalize it here, even though three years ago he said it was a gateway drug. And, he said,

You don't want New York competing with New Jersey, you don't want New York competing with Connecticut. You don't want people driving to New Jersey, because they can get more in New Jersey, or a higher percentage in New Jersey, or they have a different age in New Jersey, or a lower tax rate. So, it's regional coordination.

Riiight. Because the last thing we would want is to literally hemorrhage potheads to a neighboring state.

TGIF, everyone  - and, remember, don't bogart that joint.

Email of the Week (v12)

Thursday? Already?

Again this week, I divided the candidate emails into pre-debate day, debate day, and post-debate day buckets, so we could see if the approach changed at all for any of the gang.

Here's how the week went, with 124 emails filling my mailbox. No surprise (again) that Mayor Pete was the volume winner (again), or that Bloomy brought up the  rear (again).

So, will there be a surprise for Email of the week?  

Well, I guess the surprise is that I'm sharing one post-debate email from each of the candidates. 

After toni‌ght's debate -- after a lot of talk, plenty of attacks, and not many solutions from the other candidates -- I'm more committed than ever to building a coalition of Americans who can make Donald Trump a one-term president.

After three months of campaigning across the country and listening to people in their communities, I know that the conversation we need to have is not what I saw on stage tonight. Americans from all walks of life know we need to pull this country back together. They know this election is too important to stay divided. And they know America cannot afford another four years with Donald Trump in the White House.

Super Tuesday is one week away and millions of people are already casting their votes. It's more important than ever to have a real conversation about what's at stake.

That's why I'll be getting on the phone to speak with folks all across America tomorrow morn‌ing. Will you call 850-679-6453 tomorrow and tell us why you're in this fight?

Now is the time to make sure that we have the strongest coalition possible -- for Super Tuesday and beyond. I hope you'll call 850-679-6453 tomorrow and share why you believe this election is so important.

Thank you,

Mike

I just left the stage of tonight’s Democratic primary presidential debate. What I try to do when I’m up there is share the story of our progressive majority -- an American majority -- that wants to see real change.

I hope I did that just now. Every day of this campaign, I’m working to be worthy of your belief and support.

If I did that tonight, I would be grateful if you would donate to help us raise the $13 million we need to stay competitive to and through Super Tuesday.

If you think the last four years have been chaotic, divisive, toxic, and exhausting, imagine spending the better part of 2020 with Bernie Sanders versus Donald Trump. Think about what that will be like for this country.

We are facing a make-or-break moment in our nation’s history. For too long, our leadership has either ignored the problems that are most urgent, like climate change and gun violence, or actively made things worse. We need a new way forward.

To answer the call of this historic moment, we need to give people a reason to come together -- a reason to hope again. We can do it with solutions bold enough for the challenges we face and big enough to bring the American people together.

Thank you for all your support. It means the world.

Pete

I just stepped off the debate stage in South Carolina.

I hope I made you proud tonight. And I hope you’re ready to join me in doing everything we can to win big and defeat Donald Trump! Are you with me? Please donate now.

Tonight I talked about how we will defeat Donald Trump and my plans to get our country back on the path to progress. But we have a lot of work left to do and we have to make the most of this moment.

This was our last debate before South Carolinians go to the polls in just four days. And people in the Super Tuesday states will make their choices in just one week. So I need your help now more than ever before: Will you donate right now to help me take on Donald Trump and win the White House?

Thank you for being on my team,

Amy

It’s us against the entire damn political establishment.

Tonight it was the candidates taking aim at Bernie on the debate stage. Tomorrow it will be their super PACs and their personal billions taking aim at us in television ads.

But we have something they don’t have: people. Lots and lots of people.

That’s why your $2.70 means everything to this campaign. Because it’s not just your $2.70; it’s the $2.70 of thousands of people donating at this very moment with you.

And when you add up all those $2.70 donations, that’s the difference between winning and losing — between a president you can trust to fight for you, and a president you’re just hoping won’t lose to Trump.

So what do you say? Let’s elect the one we trust:

Can you make a $2.70 contribution to help Bernie fight back against these attacks and win the nomination? He needs you tonight.

Thank you for standing with Bernie tonight. A record number of individual donations has put us in a position to win. Your $2.70 will finish the job for Bernie.

All my best,

Faiz Shakir
Campaign Manager

If tonight made you even more ready for Elizabeth to win the nomination, defeat Donald Trump, and make big, structural change from the White House, chip in $2 or anything you can right now.

Tonight, Bloomberg did get something right about Elizabeth: "With this senator, enough is never enough."

When it comes to fighting for working people, enough is never enough.

Elizabeth didn't stop fighting when people told her the big banks would never let her create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She didn't stop fighting when people said she couldn't beat a popular Republican incumbent. She won't stop fighting now that billionaires say we can't make big, structural change.

And we won't stop fighting by her side.

Elizabeth can't do this alone. She relies on grassroots donors to power this campaign so we can continue the fight for big, structural change. Can you chip in $2 or whatever you can today?

Thanks,

Team Warren

So, there you have it: five of the seven remaining at least semi-viable candidates, and their key "after the debate ended" messages. And here's how they're doing with the fundraising they mentioned in those emails:

• Bloomy is not asking for our money, he's got plenty of his own.
• Mayor Pete set a goal of raising $13M before Super Tuesday; as of this afternoon, he was shy of 50% of the way there.
• Klobuchar did not set a specific goal, and did not provide a specific update on how much has been raised.
• That Guy from Vermont chose to set a donor goal, rather than a dollar goal: 500,000 donors by Saturday's monthly FEC filing deadline. As of this afternoon, he was just shy of 50% of the way there. 
• Warren, too, was focused on the FEC deadline, and while her team's emails didn't specify what she was looking for, in an email yesterday afternoon they indicated the had not met the daily goal, and reiterated that again in an email this afternoon.  

It's a jungle out there - a money-hungry, vote-hungry jungle. We'll see who's still standing by the time next Thursday rolls around. 

South Carolina Debate Winners and Losers

Here is the collected wisdom of the punditry on last night's debate and its winners and losers. The information in parens after the bolded winner or loser is a comment from the linked article.

From the Washington Post: 

• Winners: Papa Joe Biden (He has regularly been a loser on this list, and he was again somewhat uneven on Tuesday night. But he’s the leading candidate in South Carolina and a player on Super Tuesday on March 3, and he seemed likely to continue to be after the debate.) and Elizabeth Warren (One wonders whether she did much to help herself — especially given that last week’s debate didn’t seem to do much for her — but after the past couple of weeks, she will at least remain on voters’ radars.)

• Losers: Bernie Sanders, aka That Guy From Vermont/TGFV (“I’m hearing my name mentioned a little bit. I wonder why.” Indeed.), the CBS moderators (this was a complete free-for-all for much of the debate, with candidates talking over one another and with no one enforcing the rules) and Mike Bloomberg (It just wasn’t much better than last week, which isn’t good. Bloomberg did little to make an affirmative case for himself, even on the electability front.) 

From The Hill:

• Winners:  Papa Joe (Above all, Biden sought to portray himself as someone with the political and strategic chops to get things done rather than merely talk about aspirations),Warren (“I don’t care how much money Mayor Bloomberg has,” she said, “The core of the Democratic Party will never trust him.") and TGFV (Sanders won on Tuesday by not obviously losing.)

• Losers: Bloomy (It wasn’t a disaster. But it wasn’t good… Bloomberg’s huge advertising expenditure might yet save him, but his debating skills won’t.), Tom Steyer (The fundamental issue Steyer has faced is explaining any real rationale for his candidacy. He has so far failed to offer a unique selling point and failed, again, to provide one Tuesday.), and CBS News (The conduct of the debate was messy at times...a flippant final round focused on "misperceptions" about each candidate...)

From CNN:

• Winners: Mayor Pete (The former South Bend, Indiana, mayor was at his absolute best in this debate...If voters were looking for a Sanders alternative who looked like he could be commander in chief in this debate, Buttigieg made a very good case for himself.), Papa Joe (He cast Sanders as a dangerous risk for the Democratic Party to take, with potentially disastrous down-ballot consequences.), Amy Klobuchar (As she has done in nearly every debate, the Minnesota senator did more with fewer opportunities than almost any other candidate on stage), TGFV (no one knocked him out), and Donald Trump (A bitter, angry shout-fest in which virtually every potential nominee's dirty laundry was aired? the president couldn't have drawn up a better debate for his chances of winning a second term.)  

• Losers: Bloomy (The billionaire businessman was better in this debate than in the last one in Las Vegas. But he wasn't good), Warren (She was totally fine. But fine is probably not enough given that Warren has yet to finish in the Top 2 in any state and looks very unlikely to do so in South Carolina on Saturday), the moderators (The five-person CBS team swung between refusing to get involved as the candidates talked over one another for 15-20 seconds at a time and stepping in at unnecessary moments to break up actual substantive disagreements between the candidates. The questions were also not great... the CBS moderators often didn't seem up to the task.) and the live audience (The clapping and booing of candidates was totally out of control. And unfortunately it affected the candidates...and will likely have some reverberations on how people watching on TV thought the field performed.)

From the NY Times Opinion gang, which scores candidates on a 10-point scale to come up with an average:

• Winners: TGFV, with a 7 (Still the Super Tuesday front-runner; took hits but still standing; left me frightened about the election) and Mayor Pete, with a 6.9 (The most effective Sanders critic; had some of the strongest lines; amazingly quick on ihs feet; strong annoying-little-brother energy).

• Losers: Bloomy, with a 4.1 (snippy when challenged; could surprise people - in a good way; your off-color humor sounds like workplace hell for women) and Steyer, with a 3.8 (if he were still in 3rd grade, they'd give him a participation award.)

From Fox News:

• Winners: TGFV (he walked into the debate as the front-runner and walked out of it the front-runner), Warren (The strategy Warren employed Tuesday night is the one she should have been using for the past month: saying that while she holds similar positions to Sanders, she can turn those ideas into reality and get the job done) and Papa Joe (His performance should reassure South Carolina voters and that will help Biden in the primary Saturday.)

• Losers: Bloomy (All the money in the world isn’t going to help Bloomberg win this race because in the end, you can’t hide the real Bloomberg), Mayor Pete (This...keeps him in the cycle of moderate voter cannibalism that could deny all of the moderates the nomination.) and Klobuchar (The New Hampshire debate is now officially a one-hit-wonder for Sen. Klobuchar) and Steyer (Tom Steyer has an endless reservoir of money to stay in the race...that hurts Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar and it doesn’t help Steyer – but it does help Sanders.)

From Vox:

• Winners: TGFV (he just needed to hold his own. And he did), IMPOTUS (If there was any single takeaway from Tuesday night’s debate, it’s that Democrats are still very far from united in their quest to beat president Donald Trump.) marijuana legislation (the majority of candidates on the stage supported legalization — and even the moderates, like Biden and Bloomberg, backed decriminalization) and New York City (NYC isn’t like all other cities; otherwise, you would have a Naked Cowboy in every city, Bloomberg said)

• Losers:  Klobuchar (Even a pretty good night wouldn’t have been enough to propel her into Super Tuesday. She needed another gamechanger, and she didn’t get one.), and the moderators (Gayle King desperately requested at one point, as Amy Klobuchar just laughed at her. It felt like a metaphor for the whole proceedings: one of the gladiators in the ring laughing off a would-be referee’s attempt to impose order on chaotic bloodsport.).

And finally, from Alternet.org:

• Winners: there were none, but there were lots of

• Losers: the candidates (The muddled, confused, and slapdash nature of the event made the candidates all look like they were struggling to get a word in edgewise. They talked over each other. The questions would insubstantial and amateurish (ironically, one of the best questions came from Twitter.) There was no cohesion to the discussion and no internal logic behind which candidate got to speak), the moderators (completely failed to manage the candidates when they talked over each other, the completely vacuous questioning, a lack of awareness of some information, including the Warren/Bloomy abortion exchange, the gimmicks of asking for misconceptions and personal mottos...), viewers (Because it was so poorly moderated, the viewers — myself included — must be listed on the “losers” side of the ledger as well).

How did your scorecard compare? 

The Update Desk: 10th Debate Drinking Game

Good morning!  How's your debate hangover today?

I actually had a well-hydrated night, looking at my pre-debate list of keywords.  Here's how I did, per the debate transcript. Bolded words are winners.

• Castro, Cuba, Fidel, communism. There were multiple Cuba references and one reference to communist countries, so I'm taking a sip - but not a Big Gulp, since I'm an anti-0besity New Yorker - on that last one.
• Jim Clyburn - he's the most powerful Democrat in South Carolina, and both Klobuchar and That Guy from Vermont dropped his name.
• Palmetto (because someone will have to say it) - my guess was that Gayle King would be the one to say it, but sadly, she didn't. And neither did anyone else. 
• coalition - several mentions, from Warren, Klobuchar, and even That Other Billionaire, Tom Steyer. 
• Russia, bots - bot of course this one was there - too easy. There were 13 mentions of Trump's favorite frenemy. 
• convention, contested, superdelegates - this was an issue in Nevada, but the CBS folks didn't touch it. 
• HBCU, HBCUs - Warren mentioned this, but she spoke the words historically black colleges and universities instead of using the acronym.
• firewall - I was pretty confident someone would ask Biden about his campaign's frequent comments that SC was his firewall. The question came up, kind of, but not using this word. 
• Israel, peace, settlements - I'm claiming all three of these. The first two were mentioned, and Bloomy either couldn't remember 'settlements' or thought better of using that inflammatory word and instead referred to 'communities.' Either way,  I win.
• turnout - I figured it would be hard for TGFV to not say this one, and I was right. 
• inheritance tax - taxes yes, including a wealth tax and taxes on billionaires, but not specifically the inheritance tax. 
• Green New Deal - everyone wants this, TGFV says there are 20 million jobs in there, climate change is the existential threat to the world, and no questions? SHOCKED, I tell you. 
• Operation Chaos - another hit on my sippy cup here. Operation Chaos is what the Rs are calling their effort to get their voters to the polls to color in the bubble for TGFV (it's an open primary here).  Chaos is what Russia wants.  It's the same thing. 
• establishment (all types of it) - not mentioned, which is odd. I thought maybe one of the reporters would be willing to ask about burning down the house, but they skipped it. 
• vice president - other than this being Papa Joe's title, no mentions. I thought maybe someone would 'go there' on a veep candidate, saying a person of color, or a woman. Biden said he'd make a black woman a Supreme, but that was as close as it got. 
• expectations -again, they skirted this question, which was a natural for Biden. He did however, say he was not 'expecting' to get votes from people of color, he planned on earning them.  

Cheers to me - I did better than I did in last week's Nevada debate.  And I'll have more on the debate later, including a host of winners and losers. 

The 10th Debate Drinking Game, 2/25/20

Everyone ready for tonight's debate?

CBS is hosting the shindig, with moderators Norah O'Donnell and Gayle King, Face the Nation's Margaret Brennan, CBS News chief Washington guy Major Garrett, and Bill Whitaker of 60 Minutes making up the panel.

The candidates, in left to right order on the stage (from your viewpoint, not theirs), are: Bloomy, Mayor Pete, Elizabeth, Bernie Sanders (That Guy from Vermont, or TGFV), Papa Joe, Amy, and Tom Steyer, The Other Billionaire (TOB).

I'm trying to stay away from the really obvious drinking game words, of which there many: Medicare for All, billionaires, 1%, Super Tuesday, socialism, African-Americans, coronavirus/COVID-19, frontrunner, and the like.

Here are the keywords I'm going with tonight:

• Castro, Cuba, Fidel, communism
• Jim Clyburn 
• Palmetto (because someone will have to say it)
• coalition 
• Russia, bots 
• convention, contested, superdelegates
• HBCU, HBCUs
• firewall
• Israel, peace, settlements
• turnout
• inheritance tax
• Green New Deal 
• Operation Chaos
• establishment (all types of it)
• vice president
• expectations

Obviously, I'm hoping for an informative couple of hours, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

And the drinking game? I have no idea how that'll turn out, either. With any luck, I'll have fun, but not a Taco Bell-worth hangover tomorrow. 

Good luck to the candidates, and to you with your keywords.

Sunday School 2/23/20

I decided to spend all my classroom time with the crew at ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Not because they had any of the 2020 Dems, but because they had an interesting panel and lots to talk about.

Here's who sat in today: Chris Christie, the Republican former governor of New Jersey; Rahm Emanuel, the Democratic former Mayor of Chicago/former Obama Chief of Staff; Democrat Yvette Simpson, CEO of Democracy for America, the progressive political action committee based in Burlington, VT; and Republican strategist Sara Fagen, the former political affairs director in the George W. Bush administration.

On the question on whether  Bernie Sanders (That Guy from Vermont, or TGFV) is unstoppable, Emanuel said no, but the moderates need to "coalesce around one person" - otherwise it's going to be like the Rs in 2016: a divided field that leaves room for one person to get enough delegates. He also said that everyone else in the race now is still able to have a "thread of logic" on why they should not drop out.

Simpson said TGFV continues to struggle with older people, and she thinks a lot of them are still in Biden's camp, even though Mayor Pete is picking up ground there. And, she thinks, South Carolina will be interesting, as he's "closing in on" Biden there. She thinks he'll be the one with the most delegates come convention time, but "the biggest challenge is the establishment continuing to fight him" instead of coalescing around him as the front-runner.

Fagan pointed to a difference between '16 and now, that Trump "ultimately espoused tenets of the Republican Party." He was a Republican, she said, while TGFV "is not a Democrat."

He only runs as a Democrat because it's the path of least resistance to getting the nomination.

Simpson noted that "Bloomberg is a Republican" and Warren used to be one. But TGFV "has a record of voting with" the Dems, something like 95% of the time. And, "he's a democratic socialist, I think we have to continue to say that..." Emanuel cut her off in mid-sentence, saying "No, we don't have to continue to say that."

Simpson fought back, saying "it's the truth" and dropped names of other democratic socialists such as Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. TGFV, she said, "believes in democracy, but believes that the economy should be looked at from a different perspective."

Chris Christie chimed in at that point, agreeing with moderate Dems who say Trump will glom onto the 'socialist' tag and push it into 'communist' territory pretty quickly. Trump's already saying it; "he's going to continue to say it. And by the way, it's true." He pointed to TGFV's "socialist agenda" as proof, and wondered it if was maybe too late for the moderates to stop attacking each other and start attacking him. 

Emanuel thinks the other candidates should attack him on his gun record, or debate moderators should, and that they certainly would have in a Republican race.

The "broader point," Fagen said, is the lack of vetting for TGFV. "Now, he's the front-runner, and it is coming to him. And we're starting to see the drip, drip of comments about communist leaders around the world and socialist leaders around the world..." We'll have to see how he stands up to having the spotlight on him, she said.

Emanuel reminded everyone that both presidents Clinton and Obama put together a "coalition for congressional majorities," but that TGFV "doesn't care about that metropolitan majority welcoming independent swing voters from the suburbs" into the party. He suggested the test of this is "not one of the congressional Democrats who flipped red to blue" in '18 have endorsed him.

Simpson doesn't think having him at the top of the ticket will cause the Dems to lose the House. She pointed to the "amazing historic election in 2018" stemming from hatred of Trump, sure, but "also by the fact that "the new American majority is representing us, and they want to run" for the House and Senate.

She also credits TGFV with building a "multiracial coalition, multigenerational coalition" which Dems need for the future of the party. And, she said, "And I've told - I think I've told Rahm this, we told the entire Democratic establishment, whoever the nominee is, if it's (TGFV), people need to get their folks to show up."

Emanuel pressed the issue, using Illinois as an example, where there are three suburban representatives in Congress, and said "ask them if, if that's the choice, they want to have a democratic socialist at the top of the ticket." And not only that, he said, but there's redistricting to be done, around the country, too -- which is also at risk.

Stephanopoulos noted that the Dems have proportional primaries, which might help TGFV get a plurality, but not the majority needed to secure the nomination before the convention. Fagen agreed, barring someone like Warren getting out of the race.  But, she said, there's no real reason to get out early, because "the more delegates you have, the bigger say you have in the nomination contest, and the more delegates you have, the more likely you are to be somebody in a Cabinet. She suggested she and Christie would "enjoy watching" this particular challenge.

Christie noted there are basically two perfect situations for the Rs: TGFV winning the nomination outright, or him not doing that.

If they ever throw this to Biden or someone else on the second ballot, this will be a destroyed Democratic Party, and the only thing better than running against a Sanders-dominated party for Republicans is to have somebody else there with a completely divided Democratic Party.

So, what can the Dems do to prepare for something like that? Emanuel said if he was chair of the DNC, he'd "get a big parliamentarian that understands all the rules for the convention, because you're going to need it." He said that Trump and Putin are "picking their opponent" and that's not who Dems want, again pointing to the down-ballot issue.

Fagen said "it's more complicated than that" because the first vote they'll take is a vote on the rules. "So, are they going to change the rules? Will there be enough TGFV delegates to change the rules? I mean, this could - this could not even get out of the gate."

After some discussion on South Carolina and Super Tuesday involving Biden, Bloomberg and TGFV, things got a little heated.  Here's Simpson.

But I want to - what I want to say, George, is listen to what you're hearing. This is someone who is getting votes from the base of the Democrat Party. Bernie Sanders is who I'm talking about. And the establishment is trying to figure out how to not give him the nomination. This is not what parties are supposed to do. If he gets the votes from your delegates, he should be the nominee. 

Stephanopoulos asked if that wasn't exactly what he did against Clinton in 2016.  Christie jumped in with agreement, saying

Yes, sure did. Sure did. That's exactly what he did. Hillary Clinton had the most votes and TGFV went in there, into the convention - and caused mayhem.... Had his people booing people at the convention. And he was a sore loser last time. Now he's saying to everybody, 'well, I'm ahead, so everybody come together behind me.' Guess what, if he had done that four years ago, there would be a lot more people willing to do it. No one's willing to do that now. 

Emanuel and Fagen chimed in often during Christie's history lesson, agree with what he was saying. Simpson disagreed, saying that was different, and

We're talking about not letting - we're talking about not letting superdelegates - we're talking about not letting superdelegates override the will of the people. Bernie Sanders - Bernie Sanders has the will of the people because he's getting those votes. We're becoming more Democratic and not less Democratic. 

Christie and Emanuel disagreed strongly, with the latter saying

You are right about one thing, and that is that he is amassing delegates and getting more delegates than anybody else. What we're saying, just that this is fraught with political risk that has never been tried since 1992. And that we have to be smart about it, open-minded.... And the fact is, you're going to need a parliamentarian, and a person that understands the rules backwards and forwards, and the strength to see it through because we're going to go, at this point -

And at that point, Simpson chimed in, saying what everyone else had been trying to tell her.

It's going to be a mess.

Oh yeah, it might very well be!

See you around campus.

In Case You Missed It (v24)

A busy week here at the pastiche.  If you missed anything, I've got you covered.

We started out the week with Sunday School classrooms jam packed with presidential candidates.  Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, Tom Steyer and Pete Buttigieg were making the rounds this morning, with Klobuchar hitting four classrooms and Steyer two.  Papa Joe hadn't been around in a few weeks, it seemed, but he was happy to open up with Chuck Todd. 

On his campaign and whether he's got the urgency, the fire that people want to see, he said maybe being so polite and positive wasn't the best approach after all, but he supported his moderate proposals by saying if he gets elected he'll be "one of the most progressive administrations" in the country's history.

We moved into back-to-back poetry readings. That's right: we had an OrangeVerse entry that was all about presidential pride, including a tip of the hat to his own dreadful remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. But before that part, we had this.

Transcribe This...

Fortunately for all of us

here today and for our country

we had transcripts.

We had transcribers

professional transcribers. 

Then they said Oh, well, maybe

the transcription is not correct.

But Lt Colonel Vindman and his twin

brother - right? - we had some people 

that - really amazing.

In the second OrangeVerse,

we're well into his remarks in this part, and finally he starts talking about people other than himself - and that got me thinking about that old childhood game. You know the one, where you call out for people to come on over?

Red Rover, Red Rover...

But we have some of

the folks that are going to be leaving

right after this, and they work hard - 

and they did work hard. 

Well, we got Grassley, and Nadler, and Lee, and Romney (or maybe it was Trump himself) and more. And he's still talking...

Then it was Wednesday, and time for our weekly Wondering. Among other things, we learned that

...since January 20, 2017, the day Trump officially declared his intent to run for re-election, his campaign has put $1.9 million of donor money into the president’s private business.

After an itemization of most of that nearly $2,000,000, I had some wondering, for sure:

I don't know about you, but I have to wonder a couple of things: first of all, is there NO non-Trump-enriching space available? And second, is there any wondering why the FEC isn't up to full strength?

And one more - do the folks who are spending all of their money on Trump properties (the same as they did back in 2015 and 2016) do this on their own, or because they know if they didn't, they'd be out of a job?

After Wednesday's debate, I had to do what the real pundit do and declare some winners and losers. I agreed with some of the experts on some things, but not with all of them and definitely not on everything.  And, because I can, I updated how I did with my chosen keywords for the obligatory debate drinking game.

Finally, here are the keywords (from yesterday's post) for my debate drinking game that scored me a beverage: delegates; Super Tuesday; South Carolina; people of color; Nevada Culinary Union; stop and frisk; Elizabeth Warren. (I admit I took some liberties with that last one, scoring three times when other candidates at least said her first name. Which, as noted above, is more than some pollsters bothered to do.)

The debate post (honestly, the post, not the drinking game) slowed my progress on our candidate Email of the Week.

Rather than leaving you hanging, here's how things shook up, with an extra day for them to get their points across. Mayor Pete continues to lead the pack in sheer volume - that's been a trend for quite a while.

And then, almost as if by magic, it was TGIF time. I talked a little about whiny people, and billionaires (and one who is both whiny and a billionaire).

And speaking of that other whiner, and speaking of doing it better, you can say lots of things about Mike Bloomberg and his campaign to beat the whiner, but be sure to say he's got the best darned ads. 

Honestly, you need to see the ads...

And earlier today, I shared some of the history I found on endorsements given - or not given - by the Nevada Culinary Workers Union.  Here's a hint: they didn't make an endorsement in 2016, either.  Which means, one union worker said, that people are on their own.

Caucus results are coming in, and with a mere 3% of the vote counted, Sanders is leading the pack. In the end, we may never know why people are voting the way they are.

The best we might hope for is that the results will be known, with confidence, before midnight.

And now, a couple of hours later, it looks like my hope about getting the results will be realized. The race has been called already, and it's not close.

So, there you have it: this week's veritable pastiche. Don't forget, you can drop your email in the Instant Gratification box on the right sidebar and never miss a thing.

See you tomorrow for Sunday School.

The Missing Union Endorsement

There's an edition of The Field, the NY Times podcast, making the rounds on social media this morning. It's all about the Nevada Culinary Workers Union not making an endorsement in this year's caucus.

Instead of an endorsement, there was a union scorecard, focusing on the three goals the union believes are important: immigration, jobs, and health insurance. On the first two, as we know, the candidates are very similarly aligned - they all want good union jobs, and lots of them, and they all support protections for immigrants. Where the candidates diverge, as the union sees it, is on health insurance. TGFV will end their coverage; Elizabeth Warren will eventually replace it, and the moderate candidates will protect it.

That scorecard, and other information from the union leadership, has led some pro-TGFV supporters to holler fraud, to holler election interference, and to holler about that darned rigged system, which we hear about with every perceived slight. Everything is an offense against him; everything is an attempt to keep him from his rightful claim to the throne, it seems.

What 's so weird is that no one remembers, or chooses to talk about the union not endorsing anyone the last time around, either. There was no endorsement in the 2016 election, when it was a very close race between TGFV and Hillary Clinton.

From Adam Nagourney's February 2016 piece in the NY Times,

When it comes to labor powerhouses in Nevada, few organizations quite match the Culinary Workers Union; 57,000 strong, more than 50% Latino, with an 80-year history of labor advocacy on the Strip and a record of turning out its members in political campaigns. But the decision to stay out also appears to be, at least to some extent, a legacy of the bitter Democratic caucus battles of 2008, when the union endorsed Barack Obama in the final weeks of the campaign. Mrs. Clinton's supporters took the Culinary Workers to court to challenge its voting procedures, while an angry Bill Clinton went casino to casino, urging workers to defy their union and support his wife. 

"It's unforgivable,” a union radio advertisement said at the time of the Clinton camp’s maneuvers. 

Obama won the endorsement, and more delegates, even though Clinton won the popular vote.

Fast forward to 2016 (again, from Nagourney's article)

The union’s decision is also powerful evidence of just how unsettled this race is, with the absence of much reliable polling and a rising sense in both campaigns that the fight is tighter than it appeared just a few weeks ago... And, by many accounts, this union — which Mrs. Clinton had once counted on as a strong supporter — is just as divided as the state appears to be, and union leaders are wary about pushing through an endorsement that could split its ranks.

The candidates had some work to do, and again, ran afoul of the union, just like in 2008.

With union leaders professing neutrality, both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders have moved to win support of the members on their own, with mixed success. Union leaders rebuked Mr. Sanders's campaign after several of his workers, handing out stacks of pro-Sanders literature, posed as culinary employees to gain access to the private cafeteria where union members go on break. 

"It's completely inappropriate for any campaign to attempt to mislead Culinary Union members, especially at their place of work," Geoconda Arguello-Kline, the secretary-treasurer of the union, said in a statement. Yanna Cancela, the union's political director, said in an interview here that the union viewed it as a "huge problem" and that she had complained personally to Mr. Sanders's campaign. Mr. Sanders's campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, later apologized.  

The union leaders knew that both Sanders and Clinton had supporters among union members - but it was heading to the negotiating table and one union leader said they

want to be very unified dealing with the companies, and we don't want anything polarizing our members. 

Today, Geoconda Arguello-Kline is the head of the union, and is taking a lot of heat from Sanders supporters. According to the podcast, Arguello-Kline got a text from her daughter, with screenshots of tweets about her mom; here's a sample.

F--- off Geoconda. If Sanders loses and we don't get Medicare for All and a union worker gets cancer and gets fired and he or she dies, their blood will be on Geoconda Arguello-Kline who for selfish reasons decided to spread these lies.

The assumption that this kind of message was coming from Sanders supporters is what led to a discussion during the debate the other night about how the candidates have a role to play when it comes to their supporters. Here's Senator Warren.

Look, I have said many times before, we are all responsible for our supporters. And we need to step up. That's what leadership is all about.

And here's what Mayor Pete said about it.

...but at a certain point, you've got to ask yourself, why did this pattern arise? Why is it especially the case among your supporters that this happens? ...Look, people know the way your supporters treat them.

And the response?

Well, Pete, if you want to talk to some of the women on my campaign, what you'll see is the most ugly, sexist, racist attacks that are -- I wouldn't even describe them here, they're so disgusting...

I saw some of those tweets regarding the Culinary Workers Union. I have a 30-year, 100% pro-union voting record. Do you think I would support or anybody who supports me would be attacking union leaders? It's not thinkable.

Meanwhile, according to this article from Nicole Karlis for Salon.com, trying to get out the vote is what the union is focusing on - that, and enjoying their time in the spotlight, it seems.

"I've never heard the Culinary Union mentioned on a debate stage so much," Culinary Union member Marc Morgan, 59, told Salon. "We have such a voice [in this election]."  

Karlis wondered if there were "murmurs or sly endorsements" going on during the phone banking, but Morgan, one of several union members manning the phones, said no. 

I'm just encouraging voters to go out and participate, and I think that's most important. We want them to vote Democratic, and to beat Trump.

Karlis talked to another phone bank worker, Diane Woodman, who said that the union sitting this one out changes things.

It's different for our members because they basically have to make decisions for themselves for this election. They know our stand on what we need to protect as far as our union goes and what's important to us because we fought for it for years and years, so they will make their own decision, which is a first for them.

To me, that's one of the saddest things about this entire mess: that voters making their own decision, rather than doing what the union tells the, is "a first for them."

Caucus results are coming in, and with a mere 3% of the vote counted, Sanders is leading the pack. In the end, we may never know why people are voting the way they are.

The best we might hope for is that the results will be known, with confidence, before midnight.

TGIF 2/21/20

Let's make a list, shall we? A very short one. 

That Guy from Vermont made a comment about Russians during the Nevada debate. It was the only time Russia or Russians were mentioned, which in and of itself was interesting. First, the context: they gang was talking about nastiness directed towards folks in the Nevada Culinary Union, alleged to have been perpetrated by his supporters

Here's what he said.

And let me say something else about this, not being too paranoid. All of us remember 2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our election and divide us up. I'm not saying that's happening, but it would not shock me.

We now know why he wouldn't be shocked by this: it's because he was warned - a month ago, according to this US News article, that the Russians were interfering in our election, specifically that they were interfering on his behalf. TGFV responded strongly, saying, in part,

Let’s be clear, the Russians want to undermine American democracy by dividing us up and, unlike the current president, I stand firmly against their efforts, and any other foreign power that wants to interfere in our election.

And, he lobbed a complaint about the media into the mix. In response to a question on why this is just coming out now, when he was told a month ago, the sarcasm was dripping.

I'll let you guess, one day before the Nevada caucus... It was the Washington Post? Good friends.

Ignoring, there, that he had the opportunity to say something a month ago, and didn't. And he was the one dropping the "not being too paranoid" bomb the other night. And now he's surprised that someone tracked down the story? Sorry, but the crying about the media, like all the other crying about everything being rigged against him, is just as tedious coming from him as it is coming from that other whiner. Except the other guy does it much better.

And speaking of that other whiner, and speaking of doing it better, you can say lots of things about Mike Bloomberg and his campaign to beat the whiner, but be sure to say he's got the best darned ads. For example, here's one of the billboards he paid for in Las Vegas that are short, to the point, and funny to boot. 

Mark Ralston/Getty Images (from Slate.com)

You can see two more in the Slate article linked above - and learn about why his ads have, so far any way, been so effective.  Need a hint? Think Geico.

TGIF, everyone.

Email of the Week (v11)

Thursday is usually the day I look at emails from the Dem candidates still in the race, but sometimes life interrupts (in a good way) and schedules fall by the wayside. 

Rather than leaving you hanging, here's how things shook up, with an extra day for them to get their points across. Mayor Pete continues to lead the pack in sheer volume - that's been a trend for quite a while

Most of the pre-debate emails were requests for money, with some still reflecting on performance in the two early states. On Debate Day, the emails were encouraging me to watch, to attend a watch party, to donate (including RIGHT NOW! during the debate itself) and there was the obligatory "I've just left the debate stage, and..." from several of them. 

Otherwise, what was noteworthy?

• Bloomy is holding a 'Weekend of Action" across the country, with folks manning phone banks, putting Ring doorbells to work, hosting events, and so on, And in his "just off the stage' email, he pointed out that "people are taking notice of what we're building here." I don't think anyone can argue that point.
• Mayor Pete and his team talked about how investing in a presidential campaign is an act of hope, and he's also looking for folks willing to hosts for Team Pete volunteers as they move about the country. And, he's still releasing policies - this week we got his Public Lands paper. It's not a PowerPoint, and it's bigger than a Post-It note, in case you were wondering.
• That Guy from Vermont came close with an email asking for donations to help him take on Republicans, Democrats, the financial industry, the media, billionaires, Super PACs, and yes, the whole damn one percent. I can't read those words without hearing his voice and seeing his full persona.

But the coveted Email of the Week goes to Elizabeth Warren, not for her Debate Day email pointing out that she had taken on "an arrogant billionaire and won", but for another email directed at Bloomy.  With the simple subject line Michael Bloomberg, here's our winner.

Last night's debate wasn't the first time Elizabeth won against Mike Bloomberg.

After she launched the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Wall Street used their leverage over Senate Republicans to block her from running the agency she'd created. So she went home to Massachusetts and decided to run against one of those Republicans — Senator Scott Brown.

Brown was a popular incumbent, beloved by big banks and corporate interests, with plenty of Wall Street campaign cash to show it.

Just ask Mike Bloomberg — he hosted a fundraiser to try to re-elect Republican Scott Brown and keep Elizabeth out of the U.S. Senate.

Despite starting 17 points down — and despite Mike Bloomberg trying to keep the Senate seat for Scott Brown — Elizabeth built a grassroots movement and beat him by 7.5 points.

Elizabeth beat Bloomberg's money once before — and she's going to beat his money again. Chip in $2 right now to support Elizabeth in this fight for the Democratic nomination.

Michael Bloomberg has spent his billions helping countless other Republicans — Republicans that went on to win their elections and prevented Democratic majorities in Congress.

For Bloomberg, it's still cheaper to dump hundreds of millions of dollars into a run for president than pay the $3.163 billion he'll owe in a wealth tax when Elizabeth is president.

Just because a billionaire is angry that he's finally starting to be held accountable, doesn't mean Elizabeth's going to stop fighting. Elizabeth never backs down from a fight — and right now, she needs you with her.

Will you chip in $2, or donate any amount, to help Elizabeth keep up the fight?

Everyone tried to score points on the billionaire former mayor, both on the stage and in the post-debate emails, but Warren did it much better than the rest of them.