Sidebar: TGIF 2/16/24

In yesterday's TGIF, I put Jon Stewart on my good week list; here's what I said.

Jon Stewart returned to the host's chair on Comedy Central's The Daily Show, and I thought he did fine. Of course, I'm not afraid of pointing out shortcomings on the Dem side of the aisle, just as I'm not afraid of pointing them out on the aisle's other side.

While I thought his monologue was entertaining, it didn't pull any punches. 

• He talked about Biden not being able to remember things in his deposition and he showed a clip of not one, but four people named Trump not being able to recall things in their depositions;
• he blasted Biden's handlers, who aren't keeping a good handle on him, allowing him to make bad decisions, and bad appearances, like going on TikTok instead of doing the traditional Super Bowl Sunday presidential interview;
• he mocked just one of Trump's absurd statements - that Pennsylvania would change its name if he didn't win the election;
• he said Trump and Biden are "similarly challenged" age-wise, and gaffe-wise and
• he lamented that the strong, focused, on-his-game Biden that all of his staffers, appointees, and friends see is never filmed.

Lots of people, including the former president's niece, Mary Trump, were beside themselves after the show. For example, Ms. Trump tweeted  "Not only is Stewart's 'both sides are the same' rhetoric not funny, it's a potential disaster for democracy." And, she added, "I know Donald, and the media has to stop with the both sides bullshit."

She also penned an email newsletter titled Jon Stewart's Danger To Democracy, in which she blamed him for low voter turnout in 2012 and 2016 - and for helping her uncle get elected. 

Mary Trump, and the many others who jumped all over Stewart for "both-side-ism," missed the real point of his monologue. I added emphasis for her, and them.

We are not suggesting neither man is vibrant, productive, or even capable - but they are both stretching the limits of being able to handle the toughest job in the world. What's crazy is thinking that we're the ones, as voters, who must silence concerns and criticisms. It is the candidates' job to assuage concerns, not the voters' job not to mention them.

Stewart goes out of his way to say Biden isn't Trump, and lists the many ways they are not the same, and then says

But the stakes of this election don't make Donald Trump's opponent less subject to scrutiny - it actually makes him more subject to scrutiny. And if the barbarians are at the gate, you want Conan standing on the ramparts, not "chocolate chip cookie man."

The 'chocolate cookie man' comment is not a slap at Biden per se; it's a slap at the people who kept him away from - or didn't get him into - the Super Bowl Sunday interview and instead posted a bad TikTok video. Those folks, he said, deserve to be fired. 

Stewart told us that "The next nine months or so, depending on the coup schedule - they're gonna suck." We're going to be bombarded with emails, phone calls, and more,

and it's all going to make you feel like Tuesday, November 5th is the only day that matters. And that day does matter, but man, November 6th ain't nothing to sneeze at, or November 7th. If your guy loses, bad things might happen but the country is not over, and if your guy wins, the country is in no way saved.

He continued, after admitting that the old Jon Stewart was "too glib" and "too dismissive" of the fact that

... the work of making this world resemble one that you would prefer to live in is a lunchpail fucking job day in and day out where thousands of committed anonymous smart and dedicated people bang on closed doors and pick up those that are fallen and grind away on issues until they get a positive result and even then, have to stay on to make sure that result holds. 

So, the good news is, I'm not saying you don't have to worry about who wins the election - I'm saying you have to worry about it every day before it and every day after it. For ever. Although on the plus side, I'm told that at some point, the sun will run out of hydrogen.

If Mary Trump and all the others who jumped all over Stewart had paid attention to his full monologue, they'd understand that he's not "a danger to democracy," he's promoting participation in our democracy, and he's promoting accountability on the part of people who put these candidates before us. 

Is he wrong? 

Poll Watch: November 2020

As promised, here's another review of some recent polling, this time focusing on the November election.

First up? Rasmussen Reports has some data on what folks think of the presidential candidates. But first - the small print, or at least as much as I can see without being a subscriber: one telephone and online survey of 1000 likely voters was taken May 12-13; another similar survey was done May 11 - 12.

In May 12 -13 survey, respondents were asked whether it was very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely or not at all likely that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee, and whether the Rs should find someone other than him to be the nominee.

A huge percentage of all likely voters  - 87% -say Trump is likely to be the guy; 74% say it's very likely. I'm not exactly sure what they think is going to happen between now and November that would keep him from leading the ticket, but I guess you never know. And, 45% of all likely voters surveyed said that the GOP should find someone else, with an equal percentage saying no, and another 11% undecided.

Likely Republican voters are a bit more supportive of the president, with 95% saying he's the likely nominee and 85% saying it's very likely he'll be the one. However, 23% of likely Republican voters think the GOP should find someone else, with 7% undecided and 70% who think he's the right guy.

On the other side of things (from the May 11-12 survey) 28% of Democratic voters think their party should find someone else; 54% disagree, and 18% are not sure. Obviously, with the allegations  against Biden in the headlines (and on the banner of Fox News for days), there's some reason to at least think that maybe, possibly, in some topsy-turvy universe, there could be enough momentum for a 'draft someone else' type of movement, but that's very unlikely. In fact, it's so unlikely that 92% of Dems think it's likely - and 77% think it's very likely - that Papa Joe will be the nominee.

Next up? Recent Emerson College polling from Texas, Ohio, and California. And what do we learn here?  Well, for starters, Trump has a "slight advantage" in the first two states, and is the one most people expect to win in November. California's really only a little different.

First, Texas:

• Trump has a net +2 approval rating (46% approve, 44% disapprove);
• he leads Papa Joe 47% to 41% among voters who have decided who they're going to vote for, and by 52% to 48% when undecideds are included; and
• 61% expect Trump to be re-elected.

And from Ohio:

• Trump's approval rating is +3 (48% approve, 45% disapprove);
• he leads Biden 46% - 43%, but 51% to 49% when the undecided voters are included; and
• 62% think Trump will be re-elected.

Finally, California:

• Trump approval rating is underwater, with a net -29 (30% approve, 59% disapprove);
• by a similar margin - 59% to 29% - voters prefer Biden over Trump; with undecideds in the mix, Biden leads 65% to 35%: but
• only 54% think he's going to beat Trump. 

Other fun stuff in this survey? 

• Trump voters are more excited or extremely excited than Biden voters. On this issue, Trump leads in Texas by +27 (67% of his voters are extremely or very excited, while only 40% of Biden's are); in Ohio it's +31 (70% really excited for Trump, 39% for Biden) and in California, he's at +7 (55% really excited about Trump, 48% similarly excited for Biden).
• In some weird coronavirus quarantine alternate reality, 48% of Dems in Ohio, 51% of Dems in Texas, and 46% of Dems in California would prefer my Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo, to Biden. They don't know him as well as I do.
• Senator Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are the leaders for Biden's veepstakes. Warren, with 29% of Ohio Dems and 34% of Texas Dems preferring Warren, while in California 25% want it to be their own Senator Kamala Harris, who finishes second in the other two states. 

So, I'm curious, is there anything unexpected in any of this, or do things look about as you expected? 

Making Political Debates Better

I stumbled upon this WaPo opinion piece while I was cleaning out my inbox, and I was delighted to see it. Why?  Because Greta Van Susteren, a person with a much larger audience than I have, pretty much agrees with me on what we need to do to make political debates more meaningful, and more valuable to voters. 

First, here's my perspective, told through three blog posts. The first, titled The Comic Book Debate, painfully re-lived one of the 2015 Republican presidential debates. After noting how rare it is for me to agree with a bunch of Rs, I said

...according to CNBC, this debate featured "the best team in business" and it was "the first debate focused on Your Money, Your Vote" - you know, tough economic issues like the shrinking global economy, growing national debt, beaten-down middle class and all that...

Got it -- great team of moderators, great topic. And then, the first question.

This series of debates is essentially a job interview with the American people. And in any job interview, you know this: you get asked "what's your biggest weakness?" So in 30 seconds, without telling us that you try to hard or that you're a perfectionist (cue the giggles), what's your biggest weakness and what are you doing to address it?

The second question ended with "Let's be honest. Is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?" It got worse, leaving me at the end to note

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- we deserve so much more... and so much better. 

About a year later, I addressed a post to the Commission on Presidential Debates, suggesting that It's Not Too Late to Fix Things. My concerns were not a whole lot different this time.

While I appreciate to some extent the benefits of having a famous name and face or two sitting at the moderator's desk for the Presidential debates... we have seen this year a continuation of the moderators getting in the way, interjecting themselves and their interest in 'getting a story' into the debates, rather than facilitating the conversation in an objective manner.

I acknowledged that Donald Trump had been treated badly by the moderators (and I'll add today, that helped him win the election). I also said

It's clear that we have no opportunity to fix the candidates our political parties bestowed upon us this year, but we do have an opportunity to fix the debates so that they are more effective in educating the voting public on where the candidates stand on important issues, and significantly less focused... on sharing the candidates' respective baggage. 

I had a bunch of ideas to make it better. In addition to obvious stuff like using trained debate moderators, not media talking heads; shutting off microphones when the candidates go beyond their allotted time, etc., candidates would be forced to talk about their own policies, not the other guy's or the other gal's. I even suggested that fully-vetted minor party candidates - those offering the breadth and depth of policy positions that we'd expect from the major party candidates - also be allowed to participate. Crazy stuff, I know. 

My frustration grew last year watching the Dem debates, leading to another post focusing on Immigration Questions I Wish I Had Heard.  Here's the problem with the debate I had watched,  which covered a lot of topics, but not well. Mostly, having the candidates attack each other's positions and statements

makes for good theater, and it gives pundits a whole lot of material to work with, but does it help a voter understand where the candidates stand? Can we ever learn that, when they have one minute to not only respond to the question, but to get in  how their own stance differs from the one that drove the initial question? And to deliver a notable quotable, if they've got one handy?

 And here's what I proposed as a possible solution.

I would much rather hear real discussion on key topics, with 30 minutes or more set aside to have a real debate about the issues that matter. The candidates can be made aware of the topics in advance, but obviously not the questions, so everyone can be prepared for a robust discussion. That's right, a discussion - not an argument or dissection of resumes.

I outlined very specific questions on immigration that would have allowed us to understand where each of the candidates stand on key issues, including DREAMers, a border barrier, the e-Verify system, and more. The benefits of this go beyond helping us understand where the Dems stand, though.

... it will give everyone a chance to see, with their own eyes, that what the president says the Democrats want, and what they really want, are likely very different animals entirely.  

I think this is one of the only ways they will be able to counter his insane tweets and blatant lies. It will also give pollsters a chance to craft good questions for people, and see where the country really stands.

So, now you know where I'm coming from on this issue; here's Van Susteren's take on things.

Presidential debates are supposed to provide voters with a better understanding of a candidate’s views and how he or she would likely govern. Of course, if you think the job of the president is to make short, snappy decisions without consulting others and without examining all the pros and cons, then the existing debate format probably suits you. If, on the other hand, you think the job of the president is problem-solving, then the debate ought to be exactly that — a problem-solving test.

... If we don’t want the Oval Office to operate like Twitter, why do we test our candidates as if it does? (emphasis added)

YAY! A kindred spirit, even if she's from the other side of the aisle! Her approach is very similar to mine but goes further. I suggested giving the candidates the topics, and allowing them to prepare - but she takes it even a little bit further. Here's how she'd handle moderator duty.

...three days in advance, I would supply the candidates with a series of identical, fact-based problem scenarios. These scenarios would relate to real issues facing the United States — such as health care, infrastructure, Iran, North Korea, climate change or cyber warfare. Candidates would consider how to respond to the scenarios; they could consult with advisers and arrive at the debate with a (hopefully) workable solution.

She notes that we could still get canned answers, but I think we'd know spot them right away, compared to others who were taking this format seriously. She also points out that being able to consult with their teams would be a good thing, not a bad thing.

...what would look like “cheating” in the context of a take-home exam is akin to real-life governing. No one wants a president who acts without the benefit of being surrounded by subject-matter experts and trusted advisers. 

Van Susteren notes, as did I, the benefits of hearing the candidates answer the same detailed question, and

because the questions would not flit from subject to subject, there would be more ability to test the quality of candidates’ thinking. The presidential hopefuls would be required to describe how they had arrived at their approach, explain how it might be achieved and outline the potential consequences.

Moderators would be there to "...press the participants, politely but repeatedly, on the feasibility of their proposals." Getting things done if there's a divided Congress, or concerns about our allies and whether they'll go along with us are just a couple of probing questions she suggested could be asked.

The reasoning behind her plan is perfectly valid, even if it does attack the Dems on policy.

This format would inhibit a candidate’s ability to promise free college, Medicare-for-all and a tax increase only on billionaires — all to be magically approved by a Republican-controlled Senate — then have the time clock go off and everyone move on to trade policy....

Admitting, as I did, that there's more one way to make debates better, her bottom line and mine are the same:

If we want better outcomes in Washington, we must change the vetting process for how our presidents get there.

 Hear, hear. Maybe we can figure this out by the time we come out of the nomination conventions...

Email of the Week (v4)

Thursday is 'Email of the Week' day, when I plow through a hundred or so emails from the handful of Democratic presidential candidates I'm following to see what's going on. 

Since last week, I've received 140 emails from the folks I'm still following: Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Andrew Yang. 

I anticipated I'd be sharing New Year's wishes from the candidates today, but instead I'm sharing something I thought would have come a long time ago: notification that Julian Castro, the only Hispanic in the field, is suspending his campaign. Early on, his emails were among the most desperate seeking donations, blocking out any other message he was trying to share. In fact, I took his email subject lines and wove them into a story of desperation - it was that bad at the end of October, and didn't really get all that much better.

Like Kamala Harris before him, Castro never really got traction where it mattered - from the media. That lack of traction translated to poor fundraising, which translated to poor polling. Together, the fundraising and polling led to missed debates, which fueled further lack of interest from the media.

There's a theme in there, and it's not a difficult one to see, is it? Anyway – here’s our coveted Email of the Week. 

Friend,

I’m so proud of the campaign we’ve built together. We’ve accomplished so much together and made our mark on history.

We’ve stood up for the most vulnerable Americans—folks who are left out, cast aside, marginalized. We’ve fought for not only the middle class, but also the poor and those who are struggling the most.

We’ve put forward some of the most bold and comprehensive policy that rivals any candidate. We were the first to release polices on immigration, lead exposure, police violence, Indigenous communities, farmworkers, foster care, and hunger. And we set the pace on so many other important issues.

We traveled to communities not typically visited by presidential candidates to shine a light on important issues. We walked the storm drain tunnels beneath the Las Vegas strip where folks experiencing homelessness take shelter. We crossed the border to Matamoros, Mexico to see the effects of Trump’s immigration policy. We met with people living in a trailer park in Waukee, Iowa, after a corporate landlord jacked up their rent.

We’ve told the truth at a time when lies come easy out of the White House. We were the first to call for Trump’s impeachment. We said frankly from the debate stage that police violence IS gun violence. And we said that it’s time for a state other than Iowa or New Hampshire to vote first, so that our primaries reflect the diversity of our party and nation.

This campaign left our politics better than we found it—and that’s due in large part to you. You made phone calls, knocked doors, donated, and told your friends and family about our vision to put people first. I can’t thank you enough.

That’s why, it’s with a heavy heart and profound gratitude, that today I will suspend my campaign for President of the United States. With the Iowa caucuses just around the corner, and given the circumstances of this campaign season, I have determined that it simply isn’t our time.

I know this news hurts—but I’m not done fighting. I’m going to keep working to build an America where everyone counts, and where Democrats win races up and down the ballot.

I hope you’ll join me in that fight.

With gratitude,
Julián

I wish that the Castro who appears in the video announcing the end of his campaign had gotten even a little bit of attention from the media; had that happened, we could be looking at a very different debate stage later this month, one that is more representative of the Big Blue Tent that is the Democratic Party.  

How many are still in the race? Well, there are 13 Dems (and that guy from Vermont) still theoretically in the running; the number left in the race is equal to the number who have dropped out, if you can imagine that.

How many of them would you recognize if you bumped into them at the grocery store or the coffee shop? I'm guessing I'd know probably only a handful, and I pay attention to this stuff more than most folks I know. And that 'identity crisis' is something I'll address in another post.

Quick Takes (v29): Walking the Talk

Does anyone remember that fateful day earlier this year, when a political action committee announced that it would not accept corporate money? Let's refresh:

Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC (CPC PAC) announced its commitment to campaign finance reform by rejecting contributions from corporate PAC, making it the first major Congressional PAC to reject corporate donations.

Progressive organizations, including End Citizens United, were thrilled. Here's a statement from that group's president, Tiffany Muller:

The CPC PAC's decision to reject corporate PAC money demonstrates their leadership and commitment to unrigging the system. The Caucus has been a longtime champion of everyday families and this move underscores their dedication to giving all Americans a voice in our democracy. Their decision is part of a growing movement to refuse corporate PAC money, we we look forward to working with Representative Pocan, Representative Grijalva and the leadership of Congressional Progressive Caucus to end the influence of big money in politics so that Washington works for all of us.

And Representative Mark Pocan himself added

If we are going to end the influence of corporations and special interests in government, we have to start by not relying on their support.Only by being fully independent of their financial influence can we prioritize people over corporations.

Pretty lofty, for sure, and something I could wholeheartedly support (here's a link to my posts on campaign finance reform for background) -- and something I knew nothing about,. I would have promoted it had I known, even though I'm not a progressive by any stretch.

So imagine my surprise when I saw this headline the other day:

NEARLY EVERY MEMBER OF THE 

CONGRESSIONAL PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS 

STILL TAKES CORPORATE PAC MONEY

Yikes! Nearly every member of the caucus? Even Rep. Pocan? Yep. And it's a challenge for the caucus, and for the candidates themselves.

The new push to go cold turkey on corporate cash is creating tension within the caucus, as progressive members take offense at the implication that their votes might be influenced by big money.

According to Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, one of a handful of returning House members who have pledged to refuse corporate money,

People just feel like you're saying they are bought and sold - and some are, but many aren't. It's not like everybody who takes corporate PAC money is bad or only does what the corporations want... But that's not what this is about. It's about re-establishing trust with voters, changing the system, working from multiple angles. 

The article is a good read, as it gets into some of the nitty gritty on the variety of challenges to getting corporate money out of the picture, and also the challenges faced by incumbents who run up against very aggressive, more progressive opponents who use their campaign finance 'purity' as a weapon against the 'establishment' progressives. 

I can appreciate the challenges the candidates face - and that it's hard to go cold turkey on big money designed to buy influence, especially when the other side is not doing the same thing.

But as a long-time believer that corporate money doesn't belong in campaigns, I have to say I'm more impressed by candidates who refuse corporate money than I am by PACs that do.

And I'm much more impressed by candidates who walk the talk than I am by candidates who walk the money.