Dear College Graduates:
You have tossed your tasseled mortarboards into the air, whooped and hollered, hugged friends and family and perhaps shed a few tears. Commencement exercises stir up emotions. But I bet your heralded speaker was a sourpuss. Likely, you left the ceremony, head drooping, feeling defeated.
After glancing over a few speeches, I don't blame you for fretting about the future that awaits. Today's commencement addresses paint a dystopian picture of environmental destruction, political rancor, injustice, racism and phobias that haunt America. World collapse is imminent.
May I point out that every generation has faced a daunting future. Challenges are nothing to fear. Life does not come with a guarantee of perfection. That's why we need young people who are willing to embrace the chaos, uncertainty and difficulties that lie ahead. Who will do it, if not you?
Some of you, influenced by your professors, are angry at your parents and grandparents for the mess they have created. You are convinced we have failed miserably to solve the country's problems. It is our fault Nirvana does not exist. You yearn for a pristine America with harmony and social equity.
Each generation has dreamt the same dream. Now it is your turn to pick up the mantle of responsibility and kindle change. In our country, you are free to help shape an alternative future. Nothing will be different tomorrow if all you do is complain, blame and abstain from the fray.
Remember the next generation will point the finger at you for whatever blemishes remain.
As you leave college, your education has just begun. No matter your career choice you will be confronted with frenzied change, disruptive technology and job upheaval. You will be required to rapidly learn new systems, tactics and applications. Inflexibility is the enemy of success.
Fortunately, you are entering an era of robust employment opportunities. Wages are rising, unemployment has dipped to a historic low and job creation gallops at a record pace. Despite these conditions, a negative narrative is developing that many graduates face underemployment.
Ignore the naysayers. A New York Federal Reserve study found that graduates are accepting jobs in sectors that once were considered blue-collar. The reason is there is a severe manpower shortage that is fueling rising wages that surpass many white collar professional jobs. That is not a bad thing.
In life, it does not matter where you start. Careers are long journeys not a weekend trip. American freedom provides you the opportunity to shift careers, change companies, create your own business and pursue your passion. You control your own destiny but only if you are willing to take risks.
I read research that finds most of you desire a work-life balance. Even your grandparents and parents strained for the same ideal. The reality is there will be unavoidable trade-offs. Anyone who advises you differently is a charlatan. It will be a struggle to find equilibrium but it always has been.
In the end, you have to decide what is right for you and your family. If the current job doesn't allow you freedom from suffocating work conditions, take matters in your own hands. No one can force you to accept these circumstances. Change jobs, locations, careers. Don't let anxiety paralyze you.
Too many newly employed graduates have not been prepared for this reality. You have been coddled, protected, cocooned and frankly, spent your college careers being lectured about your right to demand that employers adapt to your needs. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not the way it works.
However, companies are becoming more attuned to employee needs because the roaring economy has sparked heated competition for the best and brightest minds. Firms are offering more perks and revamping the workplace environment. One caution: it will last as long as the economy prospers.
About 70 percent of you are leaving with a boatload of student debt: an average of $29,500. I don't need to remind you no one put a gun to your head and ordered you to borrow money. Make paying off your loan the top priority. It not only is honorable, but you will learn financial discipline.
Finally, I realize it is politically incorrect to talk about faith because many students are agnostic about the existence of God. In our country, you have the freedom to believe whatever your heart dictates. However, I implore you to ignore college professorial wisdom and do your own soul searching.
Here is counsel from someone who knows: Without faith, the world will always appear to be a darker, hopeless and cruel place. It is only by faith that we can overcome cynicism, rejection and despair. An enduring faith will arm you with the peace to face whatever life throws at you.
I pray for your success both in your career and your life. The country needs a jolt of youthful enthusiasm and guile every year to forge a brighter future. You have been blessed with an advanced education. Use your learning to contribute to the ongoing renewal of our resilient nation.
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
Warning: Your Outdoor Grill May Explode!
Summer means firing up the backyard grill. Barbecues. Smoking brisket. No meat or vegetable is safe from fiery immolation. Millions of Americans count the sweet smell of hickory smoke as the first sign of summer. But is grilling safe for humans? Not according to outdoor grill manuals.
As the proud owner of a new Coyote Stainless Steel Gas Grill, I was ready to toss a slab of ribs on the fire when my overly concerned wife suggested I read the manual first. I mean, really? I have been grilling since Nixon was president for nearly two terms. What could I learn from a manual?
Apparently, the lawyers at Coyote believe cavemen knew more about fires than I do. Their manual is littered with WARNING headlines on virtually every one of the 45 pages. I never knew grilling with natural gas ranked right up their with disarming a nuclear bomb as a hazardous undertaking.
On the second page, there is this somber warning: "NOT FOR USE BY CHILDREN." What idiot needs to be reminded that a two year old shouldn't operate a grill? I guess a kid burned down his house after lighting a grill and his parents sued. Coyote got burned and blamed its lawyers.
That is hyperbole, but this isn't. In 1994, a 79-year-old woman was awarded $2.86 million by a jury after she spilled coffee in her lap and suffered third-degree burns. She sued McDonald's because the coffee they served was too darn hot. That lawsuit opened the floodgates for product warnings.
Here is another bon mot from the Coyote legal folks. "Never stand with your head directly over the grill." I guess the lawyers are concerned that I will work on my tan while lighting the grill. Seriously? As a precaution, I slather Coppertone on my face before I stick my head over the flames.
One of my personal favorites is this one: "Spiders and insects can nest in the burners of this and other grills. which could disrupt the gas flow." If those pesky bugs want to nap on my burners, I don't have a problem. Once I goose the gas, they will roast like a pig at a Hawaiian feast. Yum.
Of course every manual must carry a legal warning to satisfy the legislative nannies in California. The Coyote booklet is no exception. Under California Proposition 65, grill masters must be forewarned that gas cooking may cause cancer. You can't make this stuff up. It's on page 4.
This is the equivalent of a sign on death row advising: "Caution: Sitting on the electric chair may singe your clothing." Soon there will be posters at the entrance to movie theaters admonishing: "Popcorn may cause choking, gagging and death. Consult your physician before munching."
But I digress. Coyote's marketing folks must have told the corporate lawyers that only dolts purchase their products. Why else would the manual include warnings about eating undercooked meat? The writer raises the specter of "bacteria" and "food borne illnesses." I promise not to eat raw chicken.
No manual on grills would be complete without instructions for cleaning the product. For instance, I discovered that touching the stainless steel cooking grids while blazing hot may result in serious burns. Thus informed, I no longer plan to hand-wash the sizzling grids with lighter fluid.
Just to make certain it's customers clearly understand the gravity of grilling, Coyote scolds users to "Obey all Warnings and Instructions" in the manual. I am surprised the maker does not require an sworn oath from every customer. I mean people signore traffic stop signs for gosh sakes.
To cover the corporation's backside, some attorney added this dilly: "Do Not Rely Just on This Safety Section. Use Caution and Common Sense At All Times." Are you kidding? If everyone used common sense, there would be no need for manuals stuffed with legal mumbo jumbo.
My view at this stage of my life is that everything is a risk. Just going to bed is no guarantee I will have a pulse the next morning. Therefore, I consider it my unalienable right to to light my natural gas grill with a blowtorch, if I choose. If something bad happens, I'll sue. It's the American way.
As the proud owner of a new Coyote Stainless Steel Gas Grill, I was ready to toss a slab of ribs on the fire when my overly concerned wife suggested I read the manual first. I mean, really? I have been grilling since Nixon was president for nearly two terms. What could I learn from a manual?
Apparently, the lawyers at Coyote believe cavemen knew more about fires than I do. Their manual is littered with WARNING headlines on virtually every one of the 45 pages. I never knew grilling with natural gas ranked right up their with disarming a nuclear bomb as a hazardous undertaking.
On the second page, there is this somber warning: "NOT FOR USE BY CHILDREN." What idiot needs to be reminded that a two year old shouldn't operate a grill? I guess a kid burned down his house after lighting a grill and his parents sued. Coyote got burned and blamed its lawyers.
That is hyperbole, but this isn't. In 1994, a 79-year-old woman was awarded $2.86 million by a jury after she spilled coffee in her lap and suffered third-degree burns. She sued McDonald's because the coffee they served was too darn hot. That lawsuit opened the floodgates for product warnings.
Here is another bon mot from the Coyote legal folks. "Never stand with your head directly over the grill." I guess the lawyers are concerned that I will work on my tan while lighting the grill. Seriously? As a precaution, I slather Coppertone on my face before I stick my head over the flames.
One of my personal favorites is this one: "Spiders and insects can nest in the burners of this and other grills. which could disrupt the gas flow." If those pesky bugs want to nap on my burners, I don't have a problem. Once I goose the gas, they will roast like a pig at a Hawaiian feast. Yum.
Of course every manual must carry a legal warning to satisfy the legislative nannies in California. The Coyote booklet is no exception. Under California Proposition 65, grill masters must be forewarned that gas cooking may cause cancer. You can't make this stuff up. It's on page 4.
This is the equivalent of a sign on death row advising: "Caution: Sitting on the electric chair may singe your clothing." Soon there will be posters at the entrance to movie theaters admonishing: "Popcorn may cause choking, gagging and death. Consult your physician before munching."
But I digress. Coyote's marketing folks must have told the corporate lawyers that only dolts purchase their products. Why else would the manual include warnings about eating undercooked meat? The writer raises the specter of "bacteria" and "food borne illnesses." I promise not to eat raw chicken.
No manual on grills would be complete without instructions for cleaning the product. For instance, I discovered that touching the stainless steel cooking grids while blazing hot may result in serious burns. Thus informed, I no longer plan to hand-wash the sizzling grids with lighter fluid.
Just to make certain it's customers clearly understand the gravity of grilling, Coyote scolds users to "Obey all Warnings and Instructions" in the manual. I am surprised the maker does not require an sworn oath from every customer. I mean people signore traffic stop signs for gosh sakes.
To cover the corporation's backside, some attorney added this dilly: "Do Not Rely Just on This Safety Section. Use Caution and Common Sense At All Times." Are you kidding? If everyone used common sense, there would be no need for manuals stuffed with legal mumbo jumbo.
My view at this stage of my life is that everything is a risk. Just going to bed is no guarantee I will have a pulse the next morning. Therefore, I consider it my unalienable right to to light my natural gas grill with a blowtorch, if I choose. If something bad happens, I'll sue. It's the American way.
Monday, May 13, 2019
Should America Scrap the Electoral College?
No sooner had the 2016 election results been certified than a geyser of protests gushed from the Democratic Party and their vanquished candidate. Hillary Clinton had won the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points but lost in the electoral college. "Unfair," squawked her disciples.
In the months since the crushing defeat, the Democratic Party has operated a below the radar campaign to tamper with the rules for electing future presidents. Some 12, mostly blue states, have already linked hands in an effort to institute a National Popular Interstate Compact.
Legislatures in theses states have agreed to commit their delegates to casting their ballots in the electoral college for the candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote. The inference is that even if a Republican garners the most votes, the "blue" delegates will back that candidate.
In reality, that is an unimaginable outcome. Therefore, it is a mostly symbolic effort. Abolishing the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, a cumbersome process which would likely drone on for years and requires ratification by three-fourths of the states (38).
The prospects for such an amendment are dim based on the current political landscape. However, it won't stop the Democrats from building momentum for abolition. The compact is a stalking horse the party has chosen to spark a national discussion that will lead to a consensus for change.
On the face of it, electing a president by popular votes sounds empirically logical. After all, senators, governors, legislators, mayors win office by collecting the most votes. There is no intermediary such as an electoral college. However, these are local or statewide elections, not national contests.
The framers of the constitution knew the risk to democracy of a popularly elected president. They fretted at the time that a handful of states or large cities would effectively elect the president by the sheer size of their population. Their concerns are even more legitimate 231 years later.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton carried the popular vote by a 2.86 million margin. However, Trump captured 2,623 counties versus 489 for Clinton. Trump won more states: 30 to 20. Clinton's popular edge was built largely on Los Angeles County and the New York City boroughs.
In Los Angeles, Clinton won by 1.2 million votes. In New York City boroughs, her margin was identical: 1.2 million. The single state of California voted three-to-one for Clinton, giving her a 4.3 million cushion in the popular vote. California's size would allow it to influence every popular vote.
In the states Trump won, his margin averaged 56 percent of the votes cast. Had Trump just taken 40 percent of the vote in California and New York, he would have captured the popular vote title. This illustrates the inflated power a few states could have in electing the president.
An analysis of the 2016 race, makes it clear that without the electoral college, the contest would never be a national election. By examining the vote totals, a candidate's path to victory in a popular vote would be narrowed to 14 states, which accounted for 65 percent of the ballots cast.
By winning 58 percent of the votes in those states, a candidate would almost assure a popular vote victory. The other 36 states would be reduced to a footnote for practical purposes. Should a relative handful of states pick the next president? Your answer depends on where you live.
The 14 states are California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia and Washington. For some perspective, California had twice as many voters as the 14 smallest states combined.
Those advocates for scrapping the electoral college argue the popular vote would improve public policy. In their view, today's election methodology incentivizes the president-elect to cater to swing states at the expense of a broad national approach. That contention is folly in the extreme.
A popular vote election would mean that the Oval Office occupant would zero in on the wishes of 14 states, many of which just happen to be controlled by Democrats. Who cares what Alaska or Maine or Wyoming want in the way of public policy? The same political inducements would remain.
Others argue, although hopefully not seriously, that every vote would count if the election was decided by a popular tally. Not really. If a candidate received one of every two votes in California, it would be worth a lot more than one of every two votes in Idaho. Population size matters.
A bit of historical perspective sheds some light on the controversy. In all the presidential elections in America, only four times has a candidate won the popular vote and lost the election. It happened three times before 1900: 1824, 1876 and 1888. It has occurred only twice since then: 2000 and 2016.
Coincidentally both recent instances involved Democrats. Al Gore lost in the electoral college but tallied 540,000 more votes than George Bush in 2000. Perhaps, that explains why Democrats are motivated to champion rewriting the constitution to benefit their party.
Those delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were a lot smarter and more fair minded than today's political charlatans. Their plan for presidential elections preserved the leverage of every state to decide who lives in the White House. It was genius. It should be left alone.
In the months since the crushing defeat, the Democratic Party has operated a below the radar campaign to tamper with the rules for electing future presidents. Some 12, mostly blue states, have already linked hands in an effort to institute a National Popular Interstate Compact.
Legislatures in theses states have agreed to commit their delegates to casting their ballots in the electoral college for the candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote. The inference is that even if a Republican garners the most votes, the "blue" delegates will back that candidate.
In reality, that is an unimaginable outcome. Therefore, it is a mostly symbolic effort. Abolishing the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, a cumbersome process which would likely drone on for years and requires ratification by three-fourths of the states (38).
The prospects for such an amendment are dim based on the current political landscape. However, it won't stop the Democrats from building momentum for abolition. The compact is a stalking horse the party has chosen to spark a national discussion that will lead to a consensus for change.
On the face of it, electing a president by popular votes sounds empirically logical. After all, senators, governors, legislators, mayors win office by collecting the most votes. There is no intermediary such as an electoral college. However, these are local or statewide elections, not national contests.
The framers of the constitution knew the risk to democracy of a popularly elected president. They fretted at the time that a handful of states or large cities would effectively elect the president by the sheer size of their population. Their concerns are even more legitimate 231 years later.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton carried the popular vote by a 2.86 million margin. However, Trump captured 2,623 counties versus 489 for Clinton. Trump won more states: 30 to 20. Clinton's popular edge was built largely on Los Angeles County and the New York City boroughs.
In Los Angeles, Clinton won by 1.2 million votes. In New York City boroughs, her margin was identical: 1.2 million. The single state of California voted three-to-one for Clinton, giving her a 4.3 million cushion in the popular vote. California's size would allow it to influence every popular vote.
In the states Trump won, his margin averaged 56 percent of the votes cast. Had Trump just taken 40 percent of the vote in California and New York, he would have captured the popular vote title. This illustrates the inflated power a few states could have in electing the president.
An analysis of the 2016 race, makes it clear that without the electoral college, the contest would never be a national election. By examining the vote totals, a candidate's path to victory in a popular vote would be narrowed to 14 states, which accounted for 65 percent of the ballots cast.
By winning 58 percent of the votes in those states, a candidate would almost assure a popular vote victory. The other 36 states would be reduced to a footnote for practical purposes. Should a relative handful of states pick the next president? Your answer depends on where you live.
The 14 states are California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia and Washington. For some perspective, California had twice as many voters as the 14 smallest states combined.
Those advocates for scrapping the electoral college argue the popular vote would improve public policy. In their view, today's election methodology incentivizes the president-elect to cater to swing states at the expense of a broad national approach. That contention is folly in the extreme.
A popular vote election would mean that the Oval Office occupant would zero in on the wishes of 14 states, many of which just happen to be controlled by Democrats. Who cares what Alaska or Maine or Wyoming want in the way of public policy? The same political inducements would remain.
Others argue, although hopefully not seriously, that every vote would count if the election was decided by a popular tally. Not really. If a candidate received one of every two votes in California, it would be worth a lot more than one of every two votes in Idaho. Population size matters.
A bit of historical perspective sheds some light on the controversy. In all the presidential elections in America, only four times has a candidate won the popular vote and lost the election. It happened three times before 1900: 1824, 1876 and 1888. It has occurred only twice since then: 2000 and 2016.
Coincidentally both recent instances involved Democrats. Al Gore lost in the electoral college but tallied 540,000 more votes than George Bush in 2000. Perhaps, that explains why Democrats are motivated to champion rewriting the constitution to benefit their party.
Those delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were a lot smarter and more fair minded than today's political charlatans. Their plan for presidential elections preserved the leverage of every state to decide who lives in the White House. It was genius. It should be left alone.
Monday, May 6, 2019
Democrat Primary Shaping Up As Donnybrook
And then there were 21. Former Vice President Joe Biden has officially joined the mushrooming list of Democratic Party candidates for president after months of speculation. His announcement means Democrats will square off in one of the most hotly contested primary races in decades.
Democratic Party candidates who have announced they are running, includes governors, mayors, congressmen, senators, a former tech executive and a best-selling author. Among the eclectic gaggle are six people of color, six women and one self-proclaimed member of the LGBT community.
A least four other Democrats sitting on the sidelines are contemplating a run which would swell the ranks to 25, far eclipsing the 16 GOP candidates in the 2016 primary. No one predicted Mr. Trump's primary victory and the Democrat winner may also be an improbable underdog.
At the outset, there are some trends developing that suggest an early winnowing of the field. The latest Monmouth University poll shows Biden and Sanders garner support of nearly 50 percent of Democrat primary voters. All the other candidates are lagging far behind in single digits.
Name recognition artificially inflates early poll data, reducing the numbers to fool's gold. Anyone remember Hillary Clinton's double-digit lead over Barrack Obama in 2007? It is nearly 10 months until the first primary on February 3 in Iowa. Events can cripple or catapult a candidate's chances.
In sizing up the race, there are a couple of political wind vanes that are pointing to the likelihood that a dark horse might emerge from the pact. One obvious sign is that former President Obama has remained on the sideline up until now. That is a significant development for Biden.
Many assumed that Biden, a loyal sidekick during eight years of the Obama presidency, would nab an early endorsement. But there are indications it may never happen. After four women accused Biden of sexual misconduct, the former president never rose to defend his vice president.
The timing of the accusations is suspect, too. In the run-up to Biden's expected announcement, allegations of inappropriate touching suddenly burst into the news. This is not coincidental. Likely someone in the Democratic Party or a candidate orchestrated the leaking of the allegations.
The suspicion here is that powerful donors and party insiders cannot abide the idea of Biden as the nominee. His baggage includes two unsuccessful presidential campaigns (1988-2008). He is 76 years old, gaff prone and carries scars from his days in the Senate, including the Anita Hill episode.
The other front-runner Bernie Sanders was rejected in the last Democratic Party presidential primary. He is older than Biden at 77. Sanders, while popular with young voters, is not considered a "real" Democrat since he campaigns in Vermont as an Independent. Labels matter to party kingmakers.
Party operatives working behind the scenes sabotaged Sanders in 2016. Many remain in power. Sanders is viewed by some party leaders as too strident, too much of an ideologue. His age, image as a party outsider and anti-business tone are non-starters for a clique of mega money moguls.
Some media outlets and Democratic strategists are already asking aloud: "Should a White Man Be the Face of the Democratic Party in 2020?" For many, the answer is a resounding "NO!" Fervent purists in the party are demanding a fresh face, preferably a woman, African-American or Hispanic.
The problem for Democratic Party pundits is that none of the other candidates, except South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has gained traction with voters, but his fund raising efforts pale in comparison to other candidates. The mayor has taken in $7.09 million, far behind Sanders $18.2 million.
Mayor Pete, a military veteran, has attributes that swept Obama to victory in 2008. He is youthful at age 37. He has served in obscurity as a mayor since 2012. He is eloquent, intelligent and confident. He is openly gay, which earns extra credit with Democrats insisting on diversity.
As a bonus, Buttigieg is not a Washington insider. Being part of the established Beltway political class is no longer seen as a plus as President Trump proved. Buttigieg can attack the mess in Washington instead of having to defend Democrats' obsession with impeachment.
Outside of Buttigieg, the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party is fond of Senators Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Corey Booker. However, the triumvirate has not penetrated the news cycles to increase their profile. The trio are searching for a lightning bolt to ignite their campaigns.
Their low standing in the polls is certainly not for lack of money. Warren is second to Sanders with $17 million banked, but has raised just $6 million. Harris has a $12 million campaign war chest. Booker trails in fund raising in the first quarter with $5 million, damaging his chances.
Former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rouke, who lost a senate race to Ted Cruz, entered the campaign with enthusiastic fanfare. He has Bobby Kennedy looks but lacks the gravitas for the glare of a presidential run. However, he has raised $9.4 million in campaign funds giving him staying power.
By the end of March, the race will crystallize. Democrats have front-loaded the primaries in key states such as California, Texas, Florida, Ohio and Illinois with big delegate counts. Twenty-nine states will have voted in primaries before April. Expect a clear front runner to emerge by then.
The big unknown for Democrats is the influence of the socialist wing of the party as exemplified by Alexander Ocasio-Cortez, the first-term representative from New York. Although small in number, they have been very vocal about demanding the party embrace a socialist agenda.
Thus the battle for the soul of the party could turn raucous, roiling the process all the way to the convention in Milwaukee in 2020. Both parties in the past have suffered chaotic primaries that left wounds that failed to heal before the general election. That is a legitimate concern for Democrats.
The other political booby trap is overconfidence. Listening to Democrats, beating President Trump will only require a warm body. They are sounding like it's 2016 again. Expect a drapery designer to show up in the Oval Office any day to choose colors for the new Democrat occupant.
General elections are not won in the primaries. But the presidential race can be lost in a tumultuous primary. Especially if a candidate enters the national contest with his/her reputation bruised and saddled with a divided party.
Democratic Party candidates who have announced they are running, includes governors, mayors, congressmen, senators, a former tech executive and a best-selling author. Among the eclectic gaggle are six people of color, six women and one self-proclaimed member of the LGBT community.
A least four other Democrats sitting on the sidelines are contemplating a run which would swell the ranks to 25, far eclipsing the 16 GOP candidates in the 2016 primary. No one predicted Mr. Trump's primary victory and the Democrat winner may also be an improbable underdog.
At the outset, there are some trends developing that suggest an early winnowing of the field. The latest Monmouth University poll shows Biden and Sanders garner support of nearly 50 percent of Democrat primary voters. All the other candidates are lagging far behind in single digits.
Name recognition artificially inflates early poll data, reducing the numbers to fool's gold. Anyone remember Hillary Clinton's double-digit lead over Barrack Obama in 2007? It is nearly 10 months until the first primary on February 3 in Iowa. Events can cripple or catapult a candidate's chances.
In sizing up the race, there are a couple of political wind vanes that are pointing to the likelihood that a dark horse might emerge from the pact. One obvious sign is that former President Obama has remained on the sideline up until now. That is a significant development for Biden.
Many assumed that Biden, a loyal sidekick during eight years of the Obama presidency, would nab an early endorsement. But there are indications it may never happen. After four women accused Biden of sexual misconduct, the former president never rose to defend his vice president.
The timing of the accusations is suspect, too. In the run-up to Biden's expected announcement, allegations of inappropriate touching suddenly burst into the news. This is not coincidental. Likely someone in the Democratic Party or a candidate orchestrated the leaking of the allegations.
The suspicion here is that powerful donors and party insiders cannot abide the idea of Biden as the nominee. His baggage includes two unsuccessful presidential campaigns (1988-2008). He is 76 years old, gaff prone and carries scars from his days in the Senate, including the Anita Hill episode.
The other front-runner Bernie Sanders was rejected in the last Democratic Party presidential primary. He is older than Biden at 77. Sanders, while popular with young voters, is not considered a "real" Democrat since he campaigns in Vermont as an Independent. Labels matter to party kingmakers.
Party operatives working behind the scenes sabotaged Sanders in 2016. Many remain in power. Sanders is viewed by some party leaders as too strident, too much of an ideologue. His age, image as a party outsider and anti-business tone are non-starters for a clique of mega money moguls.
Some media outlets and Democratic strategists are already asking aloud: "Should a White Man Be the Face of the Democratic Party in 2020?" For many, the answer is a resounding "NO!" Fervent purists in the party are demanding a fresh face, preferably a woman, African-American or Hispanic.
The problem for Democratic Party pundits is that none of the other candidates, except South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has gained traction with voters, but his fund raising efforts pale in comparison to other candidates. The mayor has taken in $7.09 million, far behind Sanders $18.2 million.
Mayor Pete, a military veteran, has attributes that swept Obama to victory in 2008. He is youthful at age 37. He has served in obscurity as a mayor since 2012. He is eloquent, intelligent and confident. He is openly gay, which earns extra credit with Democrats insisting on diversity.
As a bonus, Buttigieg is not a Washington insider. Being part of the established Beltway political class is no longer seen as a plus as President Trump proved. Buttigieg can attack the mess in Washington instead of having to defend Democrats' obsession with impeachment.
Outside of Buttigieg, the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party is fond of Senators Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Corey Booker. However, the triumvirate has not penetrated the news cycles to increase their profile. The trio are searching for a lightning bolt to ignite their campaigns.
Their low standing in the polls is certainly not for lack of money. Warren is second to Sanders with $17 million banked, but has raised just $6 million. Harris has a $12 million campaign war chest. Booker trails in fund raising in the first quarter with $5 million, damaging his chances.
Former Texas Congressman Beto O'Rouke, who lost a senate race to Ted Cruz, entered the campaign with enthusiastic fanfare. He has Bobby Kennedy looks but lacks the gravitas for the glare of a presidential run. However, he has raised $9.4 million in campaign funds giving him staying power.
By the end of March, the race will crystallize. Democrats have front-loaded the primaries in key states such as California, Texas, Florida, Ohio and Illinois with big delegate counts. Twenty-nine states will have voted in primaries before April. Expect a clear front runner to emerge by then.
The big unknown for Democrats is the influence of the socialist wing of the party as exemplified by Alexander Ocasio-Cortez, the first-term representative from New York. Although small in number, they have been very vocal about demanding the party embrace a socialist agenda.
Thus the battle for the soul of the party could turn raucous, roiling the process all the way to the convention in Milwaukee in 2020. Both parties in the past have suffered chaotic primaries that left wounds that failed to heal before the general election. That is a legitimate concern for Democrats.
The other political booby trap is overconfidence. Listening to Democrats, beating President Trump will only require a warm body. They are sounding like it's 2016 again. Expect a drapery designer to show up in the Oval Office any day to choose colors for the new Democrat occupant.
General elections are not won in the primaries. But the presidential race can be lost in a tumultuous primary. Especially if a candidate enters the national contest with his/her reputation bruised and saddled with a divided party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)