in which I am making no commitment to any candidate, but am laying down several markers, at least as I consider my support.
And I will preface this by noting my spouse is quite impressed by Buttigieg and has contributed to him (2x) and to Inslee (b/c of Jay’s commitment to the environment).
First, unless it comes down to a choice between them I will not support either Biden or Sanders. Both are several years older than me, the Presidency is a killer job, Reagan when younger than they would be during their term was already showing indications of dementia. Besides, we have already had three men elected the same year as I was (1946 — Clinton, GW Bush, and Trump) and I do not think we need to go backward in age.
Second, for myself, there are some people whose track record on issues important to me are disqualifying in the primary contest. Key among those is Booker because of his track record on education as Mayor of Newark and his refusal to criticize Christie during Bridgegate. He has also been far too connected to hedge fund types for my comfort.
So if u are interested, continue below the break to see what I have to offer.
I am not particularly impressed right now by amount of money raised or number of contributors or for the most part standing in the (far too many) polls. Yes, one needs sufficient money to hire staff. But one does not need this far from the early contests tons of money. One does need enough contributors to qualify for the debates, and hopefully sufficient poll standing to be in the grown-up debate (we are NOT going to have 20+ people on a stage at a time). The likes of Delaney, Williamson, Yang, Swalwell, Messam, Gabbard.and Ryan have a long way to go until I will pay any attention to them. They COULD do well enough in a junior varsity debate to draw enough support to make the varsity competition, but I seriously doubt it.
There are others who have a long way to go, despite having held serious positions. Among these I include Gillibrand, and Hickenlooper — they have to demonstrate that they can gain some traction in the crowded field.
There are some who are strong advocates on an issue on which I agree — Inslee on the environment, Castro on immigration. I am waiting to see if they can also offer those ideas in a moe comprehensive vision.
I am interested in how effective a possible candidate is as a communicator. Not only is this important in the campaigns (primary and general election) but it is also critical for a President.
Here the ability to tweet, while ‘useful, is far less important in how that candidate comes across
- in government events that might make tv or be propagated on the web
- in informal contacts with voters, either small events in homes or in unscheduled encounters outside or after those events — these might not have video or audio, but the impression people get, both those addressed and those observing, can often be propagated to a wide circle of family, friends and acquaintances, or even in social media posts. These can be positive or negative
- in campaign events, such as rallies, which will get covered
- in town halls
- in media appearances
- most of all in debates.
There will be things of importance that will not always be the same.
- does the candidate connect with the person(s) being addressed?
- can the candidate clearly and if necessarily succinctly make her/his points?
- do the candidate’s body language and facial expressions support the verbal expressions?
Here, if a candidate is not genuine and/or comfortable in own skin, unless the person is a skilled actor, that might be discordant to those listening / observing.
I am a musician by background. Some voices can be annoying, for a variety of reasons. They can serve as something that interferes with getting the points through to the intended audience.
You will note that since the break I have NOT been talking about issues. I am not going to offer a list of make or break issues per se. I do want to see/hear an overarching theme to which various issues can be tied. I would at some point want to be able to see the details of issues, but I think that is in general better done in policy statements on the website, or in speeches focused on one issue or a small set of related issues where the candidate can logically go into greater depth. But even here, I want to see/hear if the candidate can do so in language and expression that connects with the audience.
There are some candidates who have thought long and hard about certain issues, because they have worked on those issues for long periods of time, for example, Warren on many of the financial issues. I can respect that depth of knowledge. I would like to see that kind of knowledge connected to voters in a way that inspires them. I am not saying that Warren does not — actually, I think she often does with live crowds, but I am not sure how well that comes across on tv.
Let me turn to a somewhat different thread for a moment. One problem we still have is how the media in its gatekeeper role presents and analyzes the various candidates. Do all serious candidates get reasonable access to public airwaves, broadcast and cable? Do all get reasonable inches in major national (NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post) and important local (Iowa, NH, NV, SC, etc) publications? This can make or break a candidacy, sometimes even in the early stages.
To be fair, it is hard to provide live or even broadcast coverage of 20 people. How many hear have ever heard Andrew Yang on a tv program (I have only once).
Okay, I have been rambling. Let me offer some thoughts on particular candidates, and how I react to them right now.
Elizabeth Warren — I agree with her on so many issues. If she can survive IA, I think she will do decently in NH. Here’s to what I am paying attention. 1) can she connect with union workers in NV, and at least some Latinos? 2) watch how older African-American women respond to her — she is speaking to a lot of issues that matter to them, and she could do very well in SC as a result, or at least significantly better than many expect.
Kamala Harris — for some reason her voice annoys me. That might just be me. I have to ignore that to listen to her. I also think she somewhat overdid how she acted in Senate Judiciary. Not saying anything disqualifying, but I also find she does not connect with me as readily as does say Warren. Also as an observation — it is not a stumbling block for me that she has a White husband — my nephew for example has a Black wife. But I wonder if her interracial marriage combined with her own mixed heritage might be a reason some African-Americans might be reluctant to support her? I think it is something to watch. In general, I have no trouble with her on the issues.
I have addressed Biden and Bernie above the break, so I will not address them here.
Beto O’Rourke. I respond positively when he takes on some serious challenges, such as what he did in his Senatorial campaign about kneeling during the anthem. I can accept why he did not endorse the Democrat against Will Hurd in 2018 — next district, a Republican willing to be sensible on the border, and one of the few Republicans of color. I think he somewhat unfocused and has yet to present a clear overall vision, and on many issues is still somewhat vague for me. I expect he may e somewhat on the defensive for some things in the past, including in his public life, and fully expect people associated with Sanders to go after him as one of the threats to Bernie. Here I worry that if there is damage done thereby it could carry over to the general for either of the two men. My concern is actually more with some of the people around Sanders, but it is something I think could be a problem. I also think some of what he has done and said has been a distraction.
Amy Klobuchar — I am aware of the charges against her for how she has run staff and campaign. Despite my wife liking her on a lot of stuff, that for her is all but disqualifying. She will also have to deal with why she opposes the notion of Medicare for All. That is less a problem for me — Medicare currently has too low a reimbursement rate. I am despite being 72 not on it, having coverage under my wife’s superior health insurance as a Federal employee. My medical practitioners would keep me if I went on it, but would not accept me or anyone else as a new patient if already on Medicare because of the low reimbursement rate. I think Klobuchar would prevent a total roadblock to Trump in the Midwest — remember, she took every county in MN, which borders both WI and IA, and I think she would play well enough in MI as well. One possible issue might be that she comes across as so nice that she might not seem tough enough, except we saw how she handled Kavanaugh’s very much unacceptable remarks during his confirmation rehearing. Of course, she has yet to gain any traction, and despite being from a neighboring state is not yet doing well in IA.
Pete Buttigieg — I have already written my initial reaction to his announcement address. There is a part of me that wants to go through that piece by piece and offer analysis on both the content of a section and the way it was presented. I also watched him last night on Rachel Maddow, and I have a few general remarks to add to what I said before. First, he seems totally unflappable, willing to take on just about any topic, and does so in ways that are thoughtful, articulate, but not coming across as lecturng/professorial. His crowd did not have many Blacks, and one issue will be how he will play in the African-American community, where many older AAs have had a historically antipathy to gays. I do not necessarily see that as a stumbling block in the long run if he continues to cogently address issues of importance to African-Americans. He will be challenged on some of what he did as Mayor in South Bend, but if he can address those challenges as well as he did what Rachel threw at him, he should be fine.
Continuing on Mayor Pete — I am interested to see him in a debate. I suspect he would continue to come across not only as thoughtful, but also as absolutely genuine. And remember, AFTER coming out he was reelected with 80% of the vote. That is in a city that according to the US Census is 26.4% Black, 14.4% Latino (with more than ¼ of its population under 18).
I realize that a lot of commentators are describing Mayor Pete as”the flavor of the month” and some even remind people how at early stages in previous cycles we saw the likes of Giuliani, Cain, and Bachmann leading their primary balloting. But I think we are seeing something beyond that. The $1million raised in the 4 hours after his announcement speech is but one indication.
I also think he represents a huge threat to O’Rourke, and also a threat to Sanders. He can speak Midwestern values, he will appeal to a fair number of Millennials but also a surprising number of older people, precisely because he comes across as reasonable.
I have made no commitments. I am still probably a ways away from that.
I am also not prepared to make any predictions — it is far too early for that.
If you asked me who should be considered top-tier as of right now, I would list in alphabetic order Biden, Buddigieg, Harris, Sanders, and Warren. That would be a manageable number for a debate. It is not yet clear who else might rise to that — perhaps Beto, certainly Stacy Abrams if she chose to get in.
It should be an interesting next few months.
Peace.