WIN WITH A ROOMIER MIDDLE, DITCH SOCIALISM

If anyone says American socialism isn’t possible, point them toward the bowling shoe. ~ Hari Nef   

It seems Thomas Hobson could become a choice in the Dems’ presidential election candidate sweepstakes. It’s not a happy feeling because like most people I’ve never liked having to make a Hobson’s choice, aka my way or the highway.

Now that the chimera of impeachment has evaporated, the only way to get rid of this thoroughly hazardous president is by tried-and-true-blue voting him out of office – and assuming he’ll thereby vacate the White House.

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ steady advance in New Hampshire’s polls together with his virtual first-place tie with Pete Buttigieg in Iowa has me concerned. Why? Because Bernie is #45’s best hope for an opponent in November.

A presidential ballot choice between Bernie and #45 seems all too Hobson for me. I’d vote for Bernie if it comes to that, but it will seem feckless – socialism v. egoism.

We’re a long way from choosing a candidate that can beat #45. Although it’s not obvious when listening to the media, which has been in “today’s the day that will influence everything” status for all too long. It’s about five months until the Dems’ National Convention. Nevertheless, the Dems’ now not-so-latent schizophrenia between selecting a radical progressive versus a moderate is becoming ever-more palpable. Alas, Thorazine isn’t appropriate for treating alleged widespread and early-stage political psychosis.

Hence, the primaries must appropriately provide a voter-based choice. I expect that the media’s relentless focus on the utterly squishy concept of ex ante “electability” will thankfully dissipate. Electability will be determined ipso facto from the actual primary election results of real voters, not by confused, inconsistent polls.

We’ve just witnessed the first of the 57 rounds (that’s right, 57) of Dem primaries and caucuses. This initial round in the farmy, app-seizured state of Iowa was unexpectedly exasperating. Under 9% of voting-age Iowans attended the 1,681 Democratic caucuses last Monday. So much for participatory democracy and Bernie’s mantra of bringing more voters to his and the Dems’ table. Pete Buttigieg unexpectedly eked out an ever-so-slender win over Bernie in terms of the Iowans’ obscurely-determined state delegate equivalents (SDEs). So slender that Pete and Bernie are now uneasy co-winners. Sen. Elizabeth Warren came in a distant third and Joe Biden badly batted clean-up.

The quadrennial political spotlight shone brightly on Iowa and its caucuses, at least before they actually occurred. As we now know, the Iowa Democratic Party failed to provide timely, accurate results of their convoluted caucus process.

During the past months we once again learned a smidgen about Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, and even Muscatine. Due to the media’s obsessions, we’ve heard about all manner of things Iowan for close to a political eternity – even about the alleged “predictive power of Indian food.”

Yup, this story in the New York Times posited how Iowans’ apparent preferences for Indian food, say tasty tandoori tofu, can predict their political choice, specifically people who’ll vote for Bernie in the caucuses. This is another fine example of copy-desperate journalists falling on their cum hoc ergo propter hoc swords. According to this story, 71% of Bernie backers have eaten at an Indian restaurant (in the last decade!), as contrasted with only 40% of people who support Joe Biden. So all one had to do is ask folks going to the caucuses if they’ve eaten Indian food within the last 10 years to determine who won the caucuses. OMG, please stop; tandoori tofu won’t help you on any campaign trail, including Iowa’s.

I offer congratulations to Pete and Bernie. They managed to physically traverse not only most of Iowa’s 99 counties, but the intricacies of its byzantine, opaque caucus system. It’s a system that next to no one beyond Iowa’s border understands, or cares to. To confuse things even more, the Iowa Democratic Party provides three different sets of results for their caucuses: state delegate equivalents, the final caucus vote total and the initial caucus vote total. It’s so complicated we waited for four days to get complete, hand-on-Bible/Torah/Koran-accurate results. As one Iowa caucus secretary said, “It’s just so absurd.” Exactly.

What happened to simple, straightforward voting with a private ballot? Fortunately, that’s what the New Hampshire primary offers. It’s even smaller and whiter than Iowa – referring to both its people and its snow-covered ground. Oh well. Taking a thoroughly non-electronic, time-tested approach to voting, the Granite State's procedure uses no apps or machines; just paper ballots and pencils. Onward in lead-based security. 

Hawkeye State denizens are now back in their usual non-media-fixated political penumbra, without non-stop political ads. Ah, what a relief it is.  Meanwhile the Iowa Democratic Party attempts to cure its critically-wounded system for next time(?), while weathering much-deserved criticism.

The New Hampshire primary vote is tomorrow. At this point, according to the polls, the semi-native son Bernie is 6 points ahead of Pete Buttigieg, with Joe Biden nipping a bit at Pete’s heels. Unfortunately semi-native daughter Sen. Elizabeth Warren hasn’t fared as well. But not to worry Liz or Joe or Amy or Andrew. South Carolina’s Dem primary is just three weeks away, on leap-year day, a much-shortened eternity you all have been preparing for, right? Four days after that there’s the 15-state, Super Tuesday Armageddon – March 3.

The chart below provides several characteristics of the first three states where the Dems’ primaries-caucuses are being held, plus California the largest state in the Super Tuesday marathon. I haven’t mentioned here Nevada’s caucuses on our first president’s birthday; I’m caucused out.

PRIMARY STATES’ CHARACTERISTICS

Characteristic\State	US	Iowa	New Hampshire	South Carolina	Calif-ornia
Population (1000s)	328,240	3,155	1,360	5,149	39,572
Population Growth	6.3%	3.6%	3.3%	11.3%	6.1%
Percent of US Population		1.0%	0.4%	1.6%	12.1%
Median Age (years)	37.8	38.1	42.7	39.0	36.1
Persons under 18 years	22.4%	23.2%	19.0%	21.8%	22.7%
Persons 65+ years	16.0%	17.1%	18.1%	17.7%	14.3%
White	76.5%	90.7%	93.2%	68.5%	72.1%
Black/African American	13.4%	4.0%	1.7%	27.1%	6.5%
Hispanic/Latino	18.3%	6.2%	3.9%	5.8%	39.3%
BA or higher degree	31.5%	28.2%	36.5%	27.4%	33.3%
Median Household Income	$60,293	$58,580	$74,057	$51,015	$71,228
Persons in Poverty	11.8%	11.2%	7.6%	15.3%	12.8%

Iowa and New Hampshire have much whiter, less ethnically diverse populations. South Carolina and California have the most ethnically diverse populations of the four. California’s Hispanic/Latino population is more than twice the US average. New Hampshire represents well under one percent of the US population, and it’s much older having the highest median age of these states. New Hampshire has fewer people living in poverty and under 18 years old, and a higher share of folks who’ve gotten at least a college degree. Granite Staters also have the highest median household income, over 20% more than the US average. South Carolina has the fastest growing population during the past decade of any of these states, growing almost twice as fast as the nation.  
As seen in the chart and unsurprisingly, no individual state exactly compares to the nation, despite journalists’ superficial attempts every four years to plug their favorite substitute for Iowa or New Hampshire. Nevertheless, using the characteristics shown in the chart, California is overall the most “similar” of these states to the US characteristics.

Bernie’s (and Liz’s) “Big Structural Changes” that they advocate will not be incremental, by design. He has been consistent and clear about this for a long time; which means he’s “authentic,” an attribute the media believes 2020 Dem voters may place key importance on. There is nothing incremental, or inexpensive, about Bernie’s goals, including Medicare for All [that will provide free, government healthcare to everyone (near and dear to Dems), including illegal immigrants (not so near and dear)], eliminating all student debt, providing free tuition for public college education, or implementing the Green New Deal.

Bernie’s program appeals to big-time progressives, folks who want big-time change and those who are less concerned about how these fantasy goals (see here) could be achieved in the actual world of political and fiscal limitations. They’re not troubled about significantly expanding government that will be required to implement his vision. Bernie’s stated goals will create a form of democratic socialism that will be broader in many ways than any Nordic or European nation –encompassing over 50% of the nation’s GDP and doubling government employment. In the US, all levels of government account for about 38% of GDP. About 15% of the US labor force now works in government.

Nor are his acolytes fretful about his programs’ sizeable costs, because they haven’t read the fine, fiscal print or considered the nation’s existing financial condition, which will make his vision’s high costs a barrier to implementation. Bernie’s progressive devotees believe his political dream has got to be better than what’s happening now. These progressive stalwarts have a very low threshold for fury when anyone proposes some less than a 100% Bernie-true programmatic idea; witness Liz’s demise in polling. I strongly doubt general election voters will see Bernie’s ideas the same way as his puritanical followers do.

The president has already characterized any Democrat running for office as a “socialist” in honor of Bernie’s inescapable affiliation. More to the point, #45 and his cronies are discharging to the public that if elected, the Dems will take away your choices (e.g., private health insurance) and increase your taxes. That’s certainly a possibility if Bernie occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Our economy continues its decade-long growth cycle with unemployment very, very low (3.6%) and workers’ real wages finally edging upward. That’s wonderful news. Unfortunately, if they continue such macroeconomic advantages have favored the incumbent president in the past rather than his challenger, especially if the challenger’s support is not broadly-based.

Should we be wishing for a significant recessionary trend to materialize to “help” the Dems? No. But regrettably, the Dems have yet to broadcast clear-cut, convincing, economics-based arguments that voters can adopt in choosing the Dem candidates to continue and increase our economic growth. The Dems‘ focus is on how it is divided, not enlarging the pie. They have to own our decade-long success. The Dems simply aren’t talking about it. That’s a large mistake.

The Dems’ political prospects will likely change again, after New Hampshire and South Carolina hold their primaries. And then change again after Super Tuesday. But no matter which Dem hopeful ends in the lead after Super Tuesday and ultimately the convention, he or she will need to swiftly consolidate their support to be as broad, roomy and inviting as possible to win in November. That’s assuming there will soon be a unique multi-primary winner, which at the moment seems a large-ish assumption. That consolidation will be most difficult for Bernie, in no small part because of how narrowly he’s defined his authenticity and how he behaved after he lost the 2016 Dem presidential candidacy.

I’m not a purist or a puritan. I consider myself a realist. My over-riding goal is for the Dems to beat #45 as decisively as possible. There aren’t enough socialists, even democratic ones, in our voting public for Bernie to win. That will happen with a roomier, centered candidate, perhaps even an “extreme moderate.” Here’s hoping… 

Here are my post-NH primary observations (2/12/2020).

Bernie did as expected in New Hampshire yesterday. He won his next-door primary besting Pete, but without the anticipated margin of victory, which was an ever-so-slender 1.3% of the total vote. Both of them were awarded the grand sum of nine delegates, meaning Bernie only needs an additional 1,969 to secure his nomination. And like the fractured Iowa caucuses, Bernie did not induce hordes more voters to the polls. On that note, his goal of persuading many more “disaffected” and young voters to the polls has yet to be realized. Maybe his third try, in Nevada, will be a charm. The surprise that this hasn’t happened is itself a surprise.

Perhaps Bernie’s lean victory happened because of the plethora of names on the ballot. Amazingly, 33 different Dems were listed on the New Hampshire primary ballot; including many who have already dropped out but nevertheless received a smattering of votes.

Oh well, the media now sees Bernie as the Dem (oops, Democratic Socialist) to beat at this very early point in the primary season. He’s king for more than a day; indeed for 10 days, until the Nevada caucuses end. The big media play now is Amy’s unexpected “win” (actually her third-place finish) in tiny New Hampshire. As if primaries are a horseshoe game where near-enough to the winning stake actually counts. I guess it does, Amy now has six delegates.

The Dems’ quandary – who can actually beat #45 – remains, and will continue until the number of moderates, I’ll call them the “Mod Squad” [Pete, Amy, Joe, Tulsi, Deval (Patrick), Tom (Steyer) and Michael], slims way, way down so their votes don’t get spread around to as many folks as they do now. Even though 19 Dems have already dropped out of the race, at this point (Michael Bennett and Andrew Yang departed yesterday), nine still remain. Seven of these nine are members of the Mod Squad.

Having nine candidates in the Dems’ primaries is as confusing as the famous John Lennon song, Revolution 9 on the White Album, that entirely consists of strange, continuous loops. It’s too many loops, and candidates.

The too-large number of Mod Squaders predictably makes it easier for Bernie to win with a minor plurality, now that Liz’s star continues to fade. As the media has now continuously reminded us, Bernie’s tiny winning margin and his 25.7% share of the New Hampshire vote is the smallest in decades, and way below his winning 22% margin (and 60% share) against Hillary in 2016. Those were different times, principally because there were only two Dem candidates.

Unfortunately, winnowing down the Dem field of dreaming candidates will not happen soon. The lagging Mod Squad members, say Tulsi and Deval and likely Amy and (OMG) Joe, understandably aren’t willing to simply draw straws to see who departs now. Although the “weakest” of them might succumb before South Carolina, my bet is we’ll have to wait for nearly another month, after the March 3 Super Tuesday marathon.

The fiscal and logistical requirements for winning the 17 contests between now and Super Tuesday is staggering and will precipitate drop-outs. Other than the leaders, very few Dem candidates now have money in their political wallets or the field staff for this 17-ring circus. Will that be soon enough for the numbers-diminished Mod Squad to rally vote-wise against Bernie? I hope so. Many Dems, including me, are nervous about this answer.