Biden vs. Trump: WTF?

For the last 2 weeks, the media, politicians, and others have spent most of their time arguing about the future of the Democratic party, and whether President Joe Biden should step down “for the good of the country.”  It has been a confusing time, especially seeing some of the calls for Biden to step down coming from former allies and friends.  Even as Joe has adjusted his schedule to hold press conferences, sit down for interviews, and speak at rallies, the pressure continues. 

Last night, Joe Biden held a public press conference to discuss the NATO conference and the current state of foreign policy.  He also took questions on all sorts of subjects from a cadre of reporters for over 50 minutes.  He made a couple of mistakes, as he has been known to do for 50 years, but overall was impressive in his command of the facts, had several great moments, and was in control of the room.  Many people figured that this performance would put the controversy to bed, but it doesn’t look like that is going to happen. 

Polling over the last several months has suggested that that the election in November will be close, and nothing has really changed significantly even given the onslaught of negative stories and press resulting from a poor debate performance and questions about his health and vigor.  I’ve spent the last couple weeks trying to understand both sides of this controversy, and I’ve listened to all sorts of theories about why this is happening now, after over 14 million voters selected Joe Biden as their nominee.  It is equally confusing as to why Democrats (or Americans, for that matter) would want to move on from a President who has been as successful, or more, than virtually any President in my lifetime. 

Let’s first examine some of the theories:

1. Biden is too old to do the job, and those calling for him to drop out are just being honest about the reality of the situation, while those sticking with Joe are failing to grasp reality. 
2. The polls show that voters are concerned about Biden’s age and would prefer a different (younger, more energetic) candidate who could better make the case against Donald Trump.
3. The people calling on Biden to drop out are racists and/or sexists who fear that if Biden is re-elected, he will fail to finish his term, and a black woman will become President. 
4. The people calling on Biden to drop out are rich, white men (mostly) who are trying to sabotage Biden because he wants to raise their taxes.
5. The “media” wants Biden to drop out either to:
1. Throw the Presidential election into disarray at the last minute, creating a potential contested Democratic convention, therefore creating more news for them to report on.
2. Make the election of Donald Trump more likely, which is much better for the news industry, despite the clear and obvious danger to the country, and the world.

I’m sure I missed a few of the theories, but these are the main ones that I’ve seen and heard.  One of the things that has made it hard to comprehend is that the strongest voices calling for Biden to drop out don’t seem to have a cohesive plan for what happens then.  Considering all of the concern that Biden should drop out “to prevent Trump from winning,” you would hope that they had reason to be confident that a new candidate would make a 2^nd Trump term less likely.  I simply don’t see this at all, which makes this even more confusing.  Sure, a lot of people have said that VP Harris would be a stronger candidate then Biden, but would she actually? Others have talked about some crazy “speed dating primary” where I assume Democratic party insiders would just pick whomever they want as the candidate.  I’m pretty sure the Q Anon crowd is insisting that Michelle Obama is going to jump in and be the candidate.  Personally, I don’t see how any of these options are better suited to beat Trump, except maybe Obama, but that simply isn’t happening. 

Here is what we know for sure.  The Biden/Harris campaign has somewhere around $250 million in their campaign account, raising almost $130 million in June alone.  They have also setup campaign offices and staff in pretty much every state to organize and get out the vote for Biden.  Joe Biden is the incumbent President of the United States, and there is no more accurate predictor of who wins an election than that simple fact.  Younger, more energetic candidates had every opportunity to run and beat Biden in the primary, and failed to do so, with Biden taking well over 80% of the votes even given some high-profile defections due to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  Biden wasn’t even on the Ballet in New Hampshire and he won about 64% of the vote as a write-in candidate. Polls of Democratic voters and Democratic leaning independents have consistently shown that they will support Biden in November.  Right leaning groups and the GOP will absolutely contest anyone other than Biden being on the ballot in November (and I think that includes Harris).  Whether or not they are successful is not the point, as it will absolutely create chaos and confusion and make it much easier for Trump to claim cheating as he has done in every election he has been involved in (whether he won or lost).

Based on these facts, there are only two reasonable options:

1. Run Kamala Harris as the nominee so that she has access to the funds and election infrastructure that is already built. 
2.  Stick with Biden and do everything we can to make sure he wins. 
3.  There is no Option 3 – any other candidate will be starting from scratch, have no Presidential record to run on, and will have to fight lawsuits in virtually every state controlled by Republicans. 

Let’s take a look at option 1:  I believe that Kamala Harris has an excellent record as a lawyer, AG, US Senator and VPOTUS.  She has done an admirable job as VP on a number of issues, but has not had a super high profile so far. This is simply true, whether that was intentional within the administration, or due to the media not covering her accomplishments.  If you are someone who believes in either theory #3 or #4 above, elevating a black woman who mostly supports Biden’s policies is not going to satisfy those asking for a new candidate.  While I expect that elevating Harris would likely hold much of the base of the party together, the key question is whether you lose more votes by replacing Biden with Harris than you gain.   Does anyone remember 2016? Hillary Clinton was not only the most qualified candidate to ever run for POTUS in the history of our country, she was also extremely popular before she became a candidate.  Yes, sexism is a real thing people, and so is racism.  I don’t know how this would turn out, and neither do you.

By sticking with Joe, you get to keep the money, keep the election offices, run on the success of the current administration, and promote a candidate that is not only qualified for the job, but he is actually doing the job (quite well).  Also, you don’t alienate the 14 million primary voters who already said they supported him, and Harris is still waiting in the wings if she needs to step up.  Polls currently show that Harris would perform worse than Biden in a head-to-head with Trump.  Any boost that she would get by being the candidate (and being put in the spotlight) is very likely to be tempered by the onslaught of negative stories, rumors and lies that will be spread about her.  In contrast, they have been going after Joe for years now, and have barely landed a punch (just look at Comer’s clown show committee and the failed “impeachment” efforts). 

This is where things get interesting.  If, as I’ve pointed out, there are not many good options, and the best chance of beating Trump seems to be sticking with a Biden/Harris ticket, why are we still seeing so many people calling for him to drop out?  I have a theory, and I’ll try to explain it below.

I’ve been following politics pretty closely since the Bush/Gore election in 2000.  One of the common things that I hear from people is that the “parties are essentially the same”, that “everyone is corrupt on both sides” and that “it doesn’t matter who you vote for” because “nothing will change anyway.” I definitely don’t think the parties are the same and I absolutely think voting matters.  I also don’t believe that all politicians are corrupt, but I do believe there are corrupt politicians regardless of party affiliation.  The final statement is interesting, however.  I do believe that there is something to the belief that no matter who we elect to be our representatives, that “real change” is very hard, and that the people in power are much more comfortable supporting the status quo than enacting real, structural changes even if those changes are popular and make us a stronger nation and society. 

During the primary season of 2020, I was a big fan of Elizabeth Warren.  In fact, I had followed her career going back years to when I first saw her on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and long before she entered politics.  My reasons for backing Warren basically boiled down to her understanding that we needed real structural changes in our country if we wanted to fix our many problems.  She understood that we needed to reform bankruptcy laws for families going broke under piles of medical debt.  She was able to communicate the need for better childcare options so that working mothers and two income families could survive.  She made a case for regulation in the technology industry by pointing out emerging monopolies and unchecked power and influence due to years of mergers and consolidation.  She was the creator of the CFTB (consumer financial protection bureau) which was created to fight back against abuses by large corporations who had been scamming consumers for decades.  She also supported some versions of universal healthcare and increases to the minimum wage to help struggling families get ahead. 

I also liked Kamala, but I definitely had some PTSD after Hillary lost on 2016.  Mayor Pete was super smart, but he was also too young and inexperienced, and I worried about whether he could pull enough of the African American vote.  Beto was a great story, but he lacked enough of a national profile to really compete.  Bloomberg?  Nope.  Then there was “Uncle Joe,” who was probably my 3^rd or 4^th choice in the race.  For me, he was a great person, an excellent vice president and an admirable public servant with decades of experience.  He was also old.  He was considered a “moderate”.  He was an institutionalist.  He was a “gaffe machine” and had been for years.  I just didn’t see him as the kind of transformational leader that we needed to get the country back on track.  Then he won South Carolina, and everything changed.  He became the front runner almost overnight and went on to overwhelmingly win the nomination.  I still had my doubts, but he was a much better option than the alternative, so I was all in. 

I was also really, really wrong. Joe Biden’s administration has been transformative, successful, and much more progressive than I could have ever hoped for.  Not only did Joe’s years of experience in Congress help him to push through multiple bills with a tiny majority, but his steady hand (and great team) were able to pull us out of a recession, reasonably mange the Covid crisis, and restore our relationships with our most important allies.  He has also managed to admirably handle the Ukraine crisis, inflation and the economy, and other major issues while fighting for “real change” for Americans.  His unapologetic support of unions, especially during the United Auto Worker strikes was bold and unprecedented. He managed to provide important help to people with diabetes by capping insulin costs.  Medicare can now negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies.  He passed a minimum tax on large businesses and properly funded the IRS so it had the resources to go after wealthy tax cheats.  He was able to make progress fighting climate change by growing and investing in green energy sources.  He actually passed a gun control bill. 

After all of these important wins, I can understand why Republicans and special interests want him to drop out, but what about the Democrats?  Why would we want to ask the most successful President in recent history to step aside after accomplishing so much of “our” agenda?  And even if everyone isn’t as jazzed about these accomplishments as I am, why would you want to throw an election into chaos and potentially re-elect the worst President in the history of the United States.  Because he is old?  Because he’s incompetent and senile?  I just don’t buy any of it.  I’ll take an old and senile President with a ¼ of these accomplishments over a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, authoritarian loving, racist fake spray painted billionaire any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. 

Here is what I think is actually going on.  Biden and his administration have been too successful in remaking the country and the economy.  The corporate Democrats and powerful special interests (including the mass media) do not like that Joe Biden has been able to raise taxes on them, properly fund the IRS, block mergers, and reinstate and improve regulations on businesses.  They don’t like that Biden and the Democrats were able to cap insulin prices, negotiate drug prices for Medicare, or combat “junk fees” in many industries (airlines, banking, real estate).  They don’t like seeing President Biden standing on the picket lines with striking auto workers.  They do not like that Joe Biden is speaking out about how we need to build more housing to make prices more affordable.  I don’t think that these powers want Kamala Harris to be President either, but I think they believe she would be easier to control.  Their ultimate goal is a contested convention, where they can pick a moderate Democrat of their choosing.  I believe that candidate will be well funded but will halt much of the progress that we have seen over the last 3.5 years.  Worse than that, I believe that candidate will LOSE, and we will get Trump and Project 2025. 

Fortunately, these forces are a very small minority of Democrats, left leaning independents, and reasonable (non-MAGA) Republicans.  Unfortunately, they are also very powerful.  They control the media, and therefore the narrative that most people see, hear or read every day.  They have lots of money and are major donors to both political parties.  I assume they have promised large donations to anyone calling for Biden to drop out (I see you Angie Craig and Dean Phillips).  I believe that they are strategically targeting Democrats who are also centrists, and those who may be at risk of losing re-election in their districts.  The celebrities (Clooney, Reiner, King, etc…) are a bit more of a mystery, but I’m sure they have their reasons, legitimate or not.  In any case, the media spends way more time talking about Clooney calling for Biden to drop out than Trump being named in the Epstein files.   

If I am correct in my assumptions, I expect that this will not stop, no matter how many press conferences, interviews or town halls that Biden does, or how well he performs.  It doesn’t matter that the economy is booming, that inflation is cratering, that manufacturing jobs are coming back, or that energy production is at all-time highs. It also apparently doesn’t matter that Donald Trump is a convicted felon, that he lies every time he speaks, that he is nearly as old, twice as delusional, and unhealthier than Joe Biden.  It doesn’t matter that his closest allies are Putin, Xi, Orban and Kim Jong Un.  Do these people have any concern that he is a rapist who was fined $90 million for defaming his victim, $350 million for business fraud, or $20 million for running a fake University?  Are they concerned that he is prohibited from operating a charity (or any business) in the state of New York?  Do they care that he was best friends with Jeffrey Epstein for years and we have documentation that he flew on his plane, stayed on his island, and is credibly accused of raping a 13 year old girl and threatening to kill her if she told anyone? 

We are at an inflection point in this country, and we have been here before.  There have been opportunities for our citizens to pull together against a common enemy and move this country closer to our stated ideals.  In most cases, the powerful elites have managed to divide us through hate, fear and disinformation to protect their power and wealth.  This happened after the Civil War, when Lincoln was assassinated, and Andrew Johnson rolled back the progress of Reconstruction.  This happened in the South when Jim Crow laws (re)established freed slaves as second-class citizens, giving poor working class whites a leg up.   This happened under FDR when the New Deal policies were watered down to mostly exclude blacks from taking advantage of programs meant to lift people up into the new middle class. 

And it is happening right now. 

Here is where I have landed after the last few weeks.

•  Joe Biden has the BEST chance to beat Donald Trump. 
•  Joe Biden WILL beat Donald Trump if we all show up and vote FOR Democracy and AGAINST tyranny. 
• We have LOST the media battle – there are no fair and balanced networks anymore.
• Talk to your friends and family about the actual policies that Democrats are fighting for.
• Google Project 2025
•  Ignore the POLLS (even if they look good) – they are NOT accurate, and have not been accurate for years.
•  VOTE like your future depends on it, because it does. 
• WALK, RUN, DRIVE, CRAWL to the polls on November 5^th, and vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. 

A Look Back

The Facebook Era 

It is sort of a strange thing when you realize how much of your public identity has to do with what you post to Facebook.  For good or bad (and there is plenty of both), lots of friends and acquaintances have created an understanding of me based on words and pictures posted to a computer screen. Depending on the individual's perspective, those words contribute to both positive and negative impressions of the person behind the keyboard.  Now that I've decided to leave Facebook, I wanted to reflect on how we all got to this place, where we communicate from behind a screen, and form impressions of people based on moments on a timeline and carefully constructed computer algorithms.  

I didn't join Facebook with the intention of posting political or social commentary.  Like most others, I reluctantly handed over my personal information to Team Zuckerberg long after Facebook had replaced MySpace as the go-to site for social networking.  I can even remember the final straw that convinced me to setup my account.  I got an email from someone who was very excited about another friend's new baby.  After wondering how I could possibly be so out of the loop for this important life event, I was informed that it was all clearly posted to Facebook.  Not wanting to be excluded from future announcements, I took the plunge in August 2009. 

Finding My Voice

Growing up is an interesting and complicated process.  We all get to learn about who we are, where we came from, and how to interact with others as we advance through the various milestones of youth.  At some point, usually during or shortly following the completion of formal schooling, there is a period of uncertainty.  Now that we are in control of our lives and decisions, how do we really understand ourselves and the place we are to play in the world?  

For me, the transition from college to "the real world" was pretty smooth.  I graduated, secured a big boy job, and spent the summer hanging with friends, traveling Europe, and preparing for what was next.  After starting my job and completing training, I moved into my own place, learned about paying bills and getting to work on time, and started settling into my new life.  When not working, I divided my time fairly evenly among Timberwolves games, Thursdays at William's Pub, and weekends at Gluek's, Rosen's and The Lone Tree in downtown Minneapolis.   

At that point in my life, I wasn't particularly informed or interested in "politics", even as the 2000 election cycle was already rounding into full swing.  I grew up with parents who identified as centrist Democrats.  To me, that meant that they were neither reformed "hippies" preaching peace and love, nor were they among the "Reagan Democrats," who made a party switch to become Republicans in the early 1980's.  My first major vote in a Presidential election was for Bill Clinton in 1996 and in 1998 I joined with others in my generation to make Jesse Ventura the 38th Governor of Minnesota.  In those days, my general understanding of politics was that both parties were pretty much the same, and that most politicians were interested in maintaining the status quo.  Fresh out into the working world, armed with my shiny new college degree, I felt the need to "shake things up a bit," by electing an unpolished, though generally qualified, former wrestler and actor, to lead our great state. 

Things started to change for me after the 2000 election.  Al Gore had lost to George W. Bush, despite winning the National popular vote, in one of the closest elections in U.S. history.  The election only concluded after the US Supreme Court ended a mandatory statewide recount in Florida, in an election fraught with irregularities and accusations of fraud.  In the end, Bush won the state of Florida by less than 600 votes, giving him a slim electoral college victory, despite receiving over a half a million fewer votes.  Bush, the son of the former VP and President, was relatively inexperienced in politics, despite having served as the Governor of Texas.  He got to work quickly, implementing economic and foreign policy changes driven by a cabinet of his father's close advisors.  A short time later, our country would experience the tragedy of 9/11, the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the intelligence changes that would forever impact our understanding of privacy.  

For me, these events woke something in me; an awareness that elections have consequences that extend beyond the boundaries of my social group, community, city and state.  It was at this point when I decided to educate myself about the politics that influence our lives, regardless of whether or not we choose to pay attention.  The impetus for this phase in my development was not any particular hot button issue, but rather a search for "Truth" in politics.   I was less concerned about liberal vs. conservative economic and social policies, and more interested in understanding how to avoid the corrupting effects of disinformation and ignorance in our society.  At that time, this disinformation consisted mostly of chain emails that got passed from person to person spreading false information and conspiracy theories.  I spent a good portion of my time replying to my (mostly older) family and friends explaining why 9/11 wasn't an inside job, or that people weren't leaving used hypodermic needles infected with HIV in the coin slots of vending machines. I discovered new websites such as factcheck.org and politifact.com and used them to help people separate fact from fiction.  After Bush won a second term in 2004, it became clear to me that our politics, and our country, were changing.  

A Political Awakening

In early 2007, I became aware of Barack Obama, then a first term U.S. Senator from Illinois.  I was drawn to him mainly due to his message of "Hope and Change," now easily accessible to me due to videos of campaign speeches posted to YouTube.  After that initial introduction, I took the time to read his books - first "The Audacity of Hope" and then "Dreams From My Father," which had been written years before his improbable rise to prominence.  For the first time in my young life, I felt that this was a politician who actually understood me, and who shared the dreams that I had for my country.  For the first time in my life, I felt the need to "campaign" for a political candidate.  Still years before Facebook or Twitter for me, my campaigning mostly consisted of sending mass emails to friends, and the occasional conversation over dinner or drinks.  Most people seemed to appreciate the information and resource recommendations, though there were a few others who expressed their desire to do their own research.  Whether or not my outreach had much impact on my social circle, this initial foray into politics convinced me that I had something to say.  

As personal email gave way to text messages, and political messaging increasingly took the form of viral videos, blogs and memes, the landscape changed quickly.  I could no longer knock down a disinformation attempt by posting a link to PolitiFact or Snopes.  Conspiracy theories took on a mind of their own, driven by democratized access to information, expanding social media platforms, and sophisticated microtargeting and profiling technologies.  Eventually, we were introduced to the concept of "fake news", which were articles made to look legitimate, despite being completely devoid of factual information or journalistic integrity.  With the election of Donald Trump in 2016, these technologies and strategies were weaponized by Russia and others to further divide an already divided nation. With the help of Trump and others, the line between "fake news" and political bias was intentionally blurred, and most Americans found themselves without a trusted news source.  This created a vacuum of information and truth for most Americans, and many organizations were happy to step in and fill the void.  

Today, we live in a world where basic facts and science are questioned.  Those traditionally viewed as experts, such as doctors, professors and scientists, have their opinions questioned by anyone with access to Google.  We are stuck with legitimate media organizations who worry more about giving equal credence to both sides of an argument rather than focusing on which argument is actually supported by facts.  Worse than that, we have been inundated by illegitimate media organizations that present politically charged opinions as if they are established facts.  We are left in a space with very few trusted sources of information, and a population that picks and chooses what information to believe.  In most cases, we choose to believe information that supports the views that we already have, also known as "confirmation bias." Facebook and other social media giants, which could have been platforms to disseminate factual information, have instead become the preferred tool to spread disinformation, on a scale unimaginable just a decade ago.  

I guess that is what has brought us to where we are today.  Despite efforts to combat the spread of disinformation on platforms like Facebook, the problem continues to get worse.  The companies, who by their own admission, could employ resources to censor false information, argue that they have no role to play in deciding what content is displayed on their platforms.  Those of us who attempt to spread factual information on these same platforms find ourselves overmatched by the capabilities of those who aim to deceive.  I find myself arguing basic facts with friends instead of engaging in real political and moral conversations that are the bedrock of our Democracy.  My goal is to start having those American conversations again.  I want to engage in conversations that are grounded in facts and science.  I want people to see that our history is defined by a long series of factual events that must be understood from potentially unfamiliar (and uncomfortable) perspectives. Over the next several weeks, I plan to start these conversations, and hopefully improve upon the toxic discourse that has taken over our politics and strained our relationships with those we care about.  I invite all of you to take this journey with me, though I'm not quite sure where it will lead.  

Will it lead us to a better world devoid of toxicity and lies?  Probably not.  My modest hope is that it will at least make my life, and possibly yours, a tiny bit more tolerable. 

Thanks for reading!

Goodbye Facebook!

It has been a good run, but all good things must come to an end. I've known for years that Facebook is a horrible company, but for some reason, I felt that the occasional good things could make up for all of the bad. I've now come to the conclusion that I was wrong, so I will be moving along to greener pastures. Over the years, I've watched as so many FB Friends have come and gone...some quietly slipping away or "taking a break", and others leaving with a bang and a giant F-U! I'll be taking a slightly different path.

If this news makes you sad, don't worry -- I'm not leaving just yet!

If, on the other hand, you're popping the champagne -- you may want to put it back on ice or just block me right now (if you haven't done so already).

On November 4th, 2020, the morning after the election:

I'm gone (like Keyser Soze).

Until then, expect to hear from me (a lot), though most of the content will actually reside on my blog:

https://sota-politics.blogspot.com/

For those of you who read my posts, thank you for all the comments and criticism over the years; I promise that I listen closely to both. I hope to continue writing on my blog -- hopefully you'll follow me there instead of spending time on this toxic platform. If you are sick of hearing from me, but haven't blocked me yet, consider it an early holiday present.

Whichever category you personally fall into, I do hope that you follow along for the next 40 days, listen to what I have to say, and add your thoughts to the mix.

It should be a fun ride!

Super Tuesday 2020

It has been a long ride already, seeing the entry and exit of big names such as Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, Beto O’Rourke, Amy Kloubachar, as well as lesser knowns Tom Steyer, Pete Buttigieg, John Hickenlooper, Andrew Yang, and Jay Inslee.   As the results roll in from Super Tuesday, it is almost certainly down to three candidates to take on Donald Trump (no, I don’t consider Bloomberg a contender, but more on that later). Whether you are a supporter of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Joe Biden, it has become clear that one of those three is going to take on Trump in the general election.  Now that things are getting real, I figured I’d attempt to summarize my thoughts about the “Big 3+1” finalists, and what we can expect from now until November 3^rd. 

How did we get here?

For many people, their preferred candidate is no longer in the race.  From a field that at times included as many as 20 candidates, the vast majority are now sitting on the sidelines with the rest of us.  I’ve talked to people who think that Kamala Harris dropped out too soon, or that Beto O’Rourke would have gained popularity had he stuck it out.  Unfortunately, the reality with such a big field is that it is “All About the Benjamins” (I may be dating myself).  It costs a ton of money to build a national operation, hire staff, travel to events, and promote a candidate’s vision on TV, radio and social media.  For most of these candidates, the well simply dried up before they could mount a real challenge.  Bloomberg, and to a lesser extent Steyer, could afford an extended run all the way to the convention, even if their support doesn’t justify such actions.  For better or worse, Biden, Warren and Sanders are the three candidates that have both the following and the finances to stay in the fight. 

Where are we now? 

We are now officially down to Biden, Bernie, Beth plus Bloomberg (3B+1).

Joe Biden has been the presumptive nominee since before he was officially a candidate in the race.  His support generally draws strength from his familiarity and name recognition.  He was a seven term US Senator from the state of Delaware and two term Vice President to Barack Obama.  Ideologically, he profiles as a “centrist” or “moderate” Democrat and has the most support of the remaining contenders from “the party establishment.” He is also the candidate with the most momentum heading into Super Tuesday, fresh off a big win in the South Carolina primary and high-profile endorsements from former rivals Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and O’Rourke.   

Bernie Sanders has been a mayor, US Representative, and US Senator from the state of Vermont as part of a nearly 40-year career in politics.  For most of his long career, Sanders did not belong to either major political party, deciding to run as an Independent until his unsuccessful 2016 run in the Democratic Presidential primary.  A self-avowed “Democratic Socialist,” Sanders has argued for progressive social and economic policies and has warned against the corrupting influences of capitalism.  He favors a Democratic system of government with strong government services like Denmark or Finland, rather than authoritarian “socialist” countries like Cuba or Venezuela.  Like Biden, Sanders had a significant head start from a name recognition and fundraising standpoint due to his extended Presidential run in 2016. 

Elizabeth Warren is currently a second-term Senator from Massachusetts and a former Harvard law professor.  She rose to national prominence in the months following the 2008 financial collapse when she chaired the Congressional Oversight Panel, which helped to manage the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP, aka the “bank bailouts”).  Warren later went on to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a new independent government agency designed to protect and advocate for consumers in their interactions with the complicated US financial sector.  In the primary, Warren has positioned herself as a unifying option between Sanders and Biden ideologically; a progressive voice who believes in regulated Capitalism as an economic system.  Throughout her campaign, her anti-corruption message and litany of plans have resonated with voters, even as she has struggled to keep pace with frontrunners Sanders and Biden.

Mike Bloomberg is a multi-billionaire media mogul and three term New York City mayor.  He is also a “former” lifelong Republican who entered the 2020 Democratic race in November.  His campaign has consisted almost entirely of flooding the airwaves with advertisements, jointly trashing Donald Trump and promoting himself as a viable alternative.  As the 9^th richest person (Forbes) in the world, Bloomberg’s obscene wealth (~$53 Billion in 2019) has propelled him into the conversation despite his lack of formal organization or campaign infrastructure.  His rising polling numbers recently allowed him to join the others on the debate stage, even though he wasn’t even on the ballot in pre-Super Tuesday states.  At this point, there doesn’t seem to be a reasonable path to victory for Bloomberg, though his continued presence in the race is likely to muddy the waters a bit.   

Where do we go from here?

Today is March 3^rd, also known as “Super Tuesday” with respect to the 2020 primary season.  It is a day where 14 states have chosen to hold their primary elections, and the biggest single day of the election cycle.  After all the votes have been cast and counted, the overall picture should be clearer. With the recent exists of Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar from the race, the moderate wing of the Democratic party seems to be lining up being Joe Biden. Sanders, on the other hand, enjoys a clear advantage among the growing progressive wing of the party.  At this point, there are many things that are still unknown, including:

• Will Klobuchar and Buttigieg’s voters throw their support behind Biden?
• How much support can Bloomberg’s money and message buy? 
• Which candidate(s) does Bloomberg’s support pull from most?
• How long will Bloomberg stay in the race?
• Can Warren maintain her presence as a significant player now that the field is reduced?
• Can Warren generate momentum as a true 3^rd option between Biden and Bernie?
• If Warren can’t mount a charge, will she endorse one of the remaining candidates?  Who?

It is possible that some of these questions will be answered in the coming days, but I don’t expect clarity anytime soon.  Most of the polling that I’ve seen suggests that Amy and Pete’s voters will not necessarily line up behind Biden but will spread their votes around.  Bloomberg’s money will allow him to easily remain a thorn in everyone’s side for as long as he wants, but he’ll likely end up pivoting to support whoever is best positioned to beat Trump.  Warren is the true wild card, as one of only three remaining candidates with a viable path to victory.  If she can pile up a significant number of pledged delegates in the coming days and weeks, her campaign becomes even more intriguing.  A disappointing Super Tuesday for Warren would essentially end her chances, though I’m still not sure where she’d go from there. 

Final Thoughts

Before the polls start closing across the country, prior to the final tabulation of votes, and ahead of the endless stream of pundits telling us “what it all means,” I’d like to conclude with my own personal thoughts. 

Donald Trump is the worst President in my lifetime, and possibly the worst President in the entire history of the United States.  He is an ignorant, race-baiting, narcissist with an extensive history as a sexual predator and serial abuser. Since taking office, he has managed to chip away at the pillars of our system of government and widen the already deep divisions of our nation.  His corruption and criminality will forever be a stain on the office of the Presidency that will take years to recover from.  His legacy will eventually show that he was an illegitimate President installed with the assistance of hostile foreign powers, an ineffective leader whose actions were in service to himself, and a criminal who tarnished everything and everyone that he touched.  It is imperative for the survival of our nation that we accelerate his exit from our government.  Given the failure and cowardice of a criminally complicit Republican Congress, our next opportunity to act is on November 3^rd, 2020. 

Mike Bloomberg is a “Never Trump” Republican.  He is not, and has never been, part of the Democratic party, and, despite his advertisements, does not share the ideas or ideals of Democrats (moderate or progressive).  To his credit, he recognized that Trump was a dangerous experiment before most of his Republican colleagues, and supported his opponent in 2016.  His efforts to highlight the danger that Trump presents to our nation are welcome, though his presence in the Democratic primary is not.  I sincerely hope that he decides to exit the race and let the actual Democrats put their best candidate forward.

Joe Biden is a good man, and a lifelong public servant.  His long history in politics brings with it some admirable achievements as well as significant baggage.  He is not a good speaker, is sub-par as a debater, and has a well-documented history of gaffes and missteps.  He is 78 years old, unlikely to serve multiple terms if elected President, and his politics don’t speak to younger voters.  His extensive experience in both domestic and international politics will serve as a welcome change after 4 years of Donald Trump incompetent administration.  Unlike Trump, he likely does know many of the “best people,” and I have no doubt that he’d have an army of qualified candidates to help him rebuild the federal government if elected.  His extensive history in the public view will give the Trump campaign plenty of red-meat to chew on for attack ads, and his lack of support for progressive priorities risks alienating the fastest growing parts of the party.  If progressives fail to “turn out” for Biden, this will also put the Senate majority and House representation at risk. 

Bernie Sanders is another high risk, high reward candidate.  While his candidacy comes with a built-in army of (mostly) progressive supporters, social media superiority, and fundraising capabilities, he is also viewed by many Democrats as an outsider.  He has a long history of clashing with the Democratic “establishment,” insists on embracing the “socialist” label, and has his own long history in politics for opposing campaigns to exploit. Bernie’s history in Congress has been praised by many for his consistent stance and support for issues such as universal healthcare, workers rights and progressive economic policies.  He has also remained remarkably consistent in his opposition to involving the United States in foreign wars. At the same time, he has held questionable positions on gun rights, crime and social justice issues, and seems to have an odd infatuation with Russia.  The Russia concerns include voting against the Magnitsky Act (2012), which imposed significant financial sanctions on Russian oligarchs, and is seen as one of the underlying reasons for Russia’s election interference in 2016 (Sanders was one of only 4 votes against this legislation).  Much like with Biden, many Democrats fear that nominating Sanders could suppress certain voters, specifically moderates, independents and former Republicans who aren’t sold on Trump’s performance as President. 

Supporters of Elizabeth Warren (like myself) tend to see her as a viable third option who exists somewhere between the perceived extremes of Bernie and Biden.  Her personal story is a compelling one which is grounded in both personal and professional experience.  Her actual policy positions are quite progressive, which should have obvious appeal to Sanders voters.  Her approach to these issues is much more pragmatic, however, and she is appropriately seen as less of a “radical” than Sanders.  Her journey is intriguing, as a former registered Republican whose groundbreaking research into the causes and effects of personal bankruptcy transformed her into a fierce advocate for financial reform and consumer protection.  

Her leadership in the fallout of the 2008 financial collapse led to greater financial regulations and the creation of the CFPB, which has returned more than $12 billion to consumers from penalties enforced on large financial institutions. As a Senator, she has been instrumental in holding companies like Wells Fargo accountable for scamming customers.  As a candidate for President, her “I’ve got a plan for that,” slogan highlights the detailed nature of her policy proposals, showing both what she is proposing, AND how she will pay for them.  Warren also provides a good compromise between the “career politician” label of Biden and Sanders, and the “political outsider” label that some candidates (such as Trump) have used to their benefit.  She has limited political baggage from previous votes such as the Iraq war resolution or the 1996 crime bill, while her experience working with the Obama administration and her two terms in the Senate make concerns about lack of experience fall flat.  Finally, if anyone has any doubts about how she will perform in a head to head debate with Donald Trump, the bloodied corpse of Mike Bloomberg has a message for you (she’ll be fine). 

I have no doubt who I’d like to represent the Democratic party (and the country) as we continue our march to November.  I hope that by reading this, others can gain some perspective into how we got here, where we are at, and where we’re headed.  If I’ve convinced anyone to support Elizabeth Warren, that’s good too.  What is more important than anything else, however, is this:

The perfect candidate does not exist.

No candidate is going to check all boxes for all voters.

We must ALL support whichever candidate emerges from this crowded field if we are going to finally rid ourselves of Donald Trump. 

Collusion, Obstruction and Impeachment

Finally! The Mueller Report

Since the release of the long-awaited Mueller Report, I’ve noticed that there seems to be a great deal of confusion among the general public. There are countless opinions, articles and news segments that focus on the release of the (redacted) report, its key conclusions, and what should happen next.  Did the report prove that the President and/or members of his campaign “colluded” with Russia?  Did the Robert Mueller and his team establish that the President was guilty of “obstructing” justice by interfering with the investigation?  Should the US Congress move to “impeach” Donald Trump and attempt to remove him from office?   I’m going to attempt to summarize some of the key facts and hopefully clarify some common misunderstandings and misinformation that I hear being floated in the media and online. 

Collusion

One of the most important things to understand, and I think the one thing that is most misunderstood, is the whole concept of collusion.  While the word is not entirely new to most Americans, we have probably heard more about it in the last couple years than the rest of our lives combined.  

Here are a few things to understand:

First of all, collusion is not a crime.  It is important to realize that the simple act of collusion is not, in and of itself, a criminal act.  The word simply means cooperating with another person or group to achieve some sort of common goal.  The communication is often done secretly, and in many cases can be illegal, but that is not always the case. 

For my last birthday, my wife wanted to surprise me by planning a weekend trip to Chicago to see the musical Hamilton.  To keep me in the dark, she secretly communicated about her plans with my mother-in-law, my parents, and my cousin. While she went to great lengths to keep these plans secret, they clearly were not illegal. Her actions most certainly met the dictionary definition of collusion, as she was involved in a “secret agreement or cooperation” with various members of my family. 

There are other words in the English language that we normally associate with illegal acts but are not necessarily illegal.  Bribery is one word that generally has a negative connotation, but that often falls far short of being illegal.  Is it illegal when my son “bribes” his sister with candy if she agrees to get up early and take care of the dog?  Just ask any parent how often they resort to bribing their children to encourage a change in behavior. 

The “NO COLLUSION!” crowd, no one more than the President himself, have conditioned the public to such an extent that we’ve lost an understanding of the word itself.  The result of this campaign of dis-information is that anything short of the headline “Mueller Charges Trump with Collusion” is considered (by some) to be an exoneration.  

The Collusion Conclusion

The odd thing about Trump’s fascination with the “NO COLLUSION” talking point is that the Mueller Report, along with an enormous amount of public information, absolutely proves that “collusion” between Trump and/or members of the Trump campaign and Russia, DID occur.  There are, in fact, so many instances and examples of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia that there are entire books written about them.  My personal favorite is "Proof of Collusion" by Seth Abramson, which you can pick up here:

I am slightly disappointed that Mueller didn’t write his report in such a way as to use the word collusion exhaustively, to drive this point home, and to troll Trump incessantly. 

The objective of the Special Council’s report was not to prove “collusion,” which is not a legal term, but rather to investigate whether there was evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the campaign and Russia.  Because Robert Mueller is a law enforcement officer, he cannot charge Trump with collusion, nor would it be appropriate to lay out a case for it.  He did, however, lay out in detail, several very concerning, secret contacts and agreements between the Trump campaign and Russian individuals, government agents and suspected intermediaries. 

These include:

·       Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort (convicted felon) and his deputy Rick Gates (cooperating witness) provided detailed internal polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, who US Intel believes is a Russian intelligence officer. 

·       Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner attended a meeting at Trump Tower with multiple Russian government officials to get “dirt on Hillary Clinton” as part of the Russian government’s “support for Donald Trump.”

·       George Papadopoulos, a Trump foreign policy advisor, secretly met with a contact (Joseph Mifsud), and attempted to organize a secret meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

·       Roger Stone (informal campaign advisor) communicated with Wikileaks, Julian Assange and Russian hackers to learn about and possibly help to coordinate the leaks of stolen emails damaging to the Clinton campaign.

·       Michael Flynn, who was a campaign advisor and Trump National Security Advisor, spoke on multiple occasions to Russian government officials about relaxing sanctions imposed by Barack Obama once Trump took office.

·       Michael Cohen, the President’s personal lawyer and “fixer”, was helping to negotiate business deals in Russia during the campaign. 

Like I said, there are entire books that go into detailed accounts of the above actions and more.  The question of whether the President and his campaign “colluded” with Russia is not at issue.  He absolutely, unequivocally, undeniably DID! The real headline of the Mueller Report should be “Mueller Unable to Prove Criminal Conspiracy with Russia Beyond a Reasonable Doubt,” as “NO COLLUSION” is both 100% FALSE and irrelevant to the investigation. 

Obstruction of Justice

So, how is it possible that, even with so much available information about contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, Mueller was unable to prove “criminal conspiracy?” First, this is an extremely difficult charge to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  Secondly, the actions of the Trump administration, including the President himself, made this difficult task nearly impossible.  The Mueller Report states, in no uncertain terms, that the inability to charge conspiracy was (at least in part) due to clear evidence of obstruction of justice, which is a criminal offense.  He then goes on to detail at least 10 different instances where Trump himself may have obstructed justice.  

These include, but are not limited to:

• Firing FBI director James Comey
• Attempting to fire Robert Mueller
• Encouraging witnesses to lie to investigators
• Dangling Presidential pardons in return for “loyalty”

Under normal circumstances, any one of the above instances could (and likely would) be prosecuted as obstruction of justice and would result in jail time. The Mueller Report clearly lays out the circumstances and evidence of obstruction, and it is likely that some, if not all, of these charges would result in a guilty verdict.  So why did Mueller decline to “charge” Trump with obstruction in his long-awaited report?  Why did AG William Barr decide to “clear” Trump of the obstruction charges before making the report available to Congress and the public? 

Put very simply, the Department of Justice operates under a guidance document that advises its officers not to charge a sitting President with a crime.  This guidance is not a law, and many very respected people disagree with the guidance and its application.  As far as I can tell, the thinking is that it would be too harmful to the country to have a sitting President go to trial while still attempting to perform the duties of his or her office.  Furthermore, if the President were found guilty, do we send them to jail?  Would the order of succession protocol be applied to a President who is incarcerated while in office? The clear preference of the DOJ is for Congress to consider the matter, holding hearings if necessary, and to determine the best course of action, up to and including impeachment.  It is certainly a valid argument, through I’m not sure how well it applies in our current situation. 

The logical argument for NOT charging a sitting President with a crime rests on three main assumptions:

• The job of President of the United States is extremely demanding and time-consuming. Charging POTUS with a crime would force them to dedicate too much time huddling with lawyers, sitting in a courtroom, and otherwise participating in the legal process.  This distraction could detract from the duties of the office and negatively impact the country.

• The degree to which a President’s indiscretion can negatively impact the country will generally be less than the disruption caused by a highly publicized trial. 

• Our country is based on the ideas of separation of powers, as well as checks and balances.  We expect our elected officials, most of all the President, to represent our country honorably and, most of all, legally.  In a case where the President fails to uphold these standards, Congress will step in and hold him or her accountable.  

In most administrations, I’d generally agree that the above assumptions are valid, and therefore that the DOJ guidance is probably appropriate.  Unfortunately, this is not most administrations.

• We currently have a President who spends more time on Twitter than speaking with his advisers.  We have a President who spends more time watching cable news than reading intelligence briefings.  We have a President who spends more time at campaign rallies and political fundraisers than visiting our troops or disaster victims.  We have a President who spends more time golfing at his private clubs than just about any other single activity.  Simply put, the President is not busy doing his job and working on behalf of the American people; he has plenty of time to devote to trial preparation. 

• President Trump’s crimes and indiscretions in office rise to a level we have never seen in this country.  The costs of his actions are almost impossible to calculate.  The damage that he has done to the country and to the office of the Presidency already far exceeds any additional damage that a highly publicized criminal trial might bring. 

• If we had a Congress that took its Constitutional responsibilities seriously, Donald Trump would be impeached and removed from office.  Due to the current makeup of Congress, it is extremely unlikely that this will happen.  This is not due to a lack of evidence or justification. It is simply due to partisan politics, where one party refuses to hold itself responsible for its actions.     

Impeachment

So, what happens next?  It is important to understand that impeachment is a process, not a single act of Congress.  It is not like proposing a bill, and then voting one way or the other.  The impeachment process begins first in the US House of Representatives.  In most cases, this starts with hearings, where evidence is presented, witnesses are interviewed, and positions debated.  Eventually, the articles of impeachment are drafted, and there is a vote.  If a majority of the House votes to impeach, then the process moves to the Senate.  In the Senate, there is a formal trial that is overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, with the Senators as the jury.  To remove a President from office, at least 2/3 of the Senate must vote that way. 

With the current construction of Congress, it is likely the House would vote to impeach the President based on the available evidence (especially the obstruction of justice charges), but it is extremely unlikely that 2/3 of the Senate would vote to remove him from office.  Many Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have stated that taking up this process would therefore be an unnecessary distraction from their very full agenda, and that the voters could hold it against them in 2020.  Others feel that the evidence that is already available is strong enough to move forward with impeachment proceedings immediately. 

I personally believe that the most likely scenario is that the House proceeds with hearings (including interviewing AG Barr and Robert Mueller and others named in the report) to learn more before deciding on formal impeachment proceedings.  My feeling is that this would allow the Democrats to take on the hearings without completely ignoring their other legislative priorities.  It would indicate to the President and to Americans that the kind of behavior detailed in the Mueller Report will not be tolerated.  Politically, it will keep the President’s corrupt actions in the public view, and force members of Congress to take a stand on these issues.  I do not believe that it is acceptable to simply move on and wait for 2020.  That sends a message that the President is above the law, and that Congress cannot be trusted to fulfill its duty to act as a “check” on the executive branch.  As Senator Elizabeth Warren said recently, if our elected representatives decide that the President’s actions are acceptable, they should be forced to vote that way, and live with that vote for the rest of their lives. 

Whether the President is removed from office in 2019, 2020, or 2024, we must quickly come together as a country and determine how to recover and repair our fragile Democracy in the months and years to come.  The Trump administration, along with a complicit GOP, have proven that our system of government is not foolproof.  Severe corruption, aided by collusion and greed, has exposed some very big cracks in the armor of our Democracy.  We must learn from this period and prop up our institutions to make sure that we emerge stronger as a nation.  In future elections, we must elect leaders who believe in these institutions and who put our country and its citizens ahead of their personal ambitions.  Only then can we begin the long press of restoring our damaged standing in the world.