Right in San Francisco

Stop Trump - Get Out the Vote

   The 26 states and territories voting between now an March 15 may well determine whether or not Donald Trump is the Republican nominee and voters in November will be forced to decide between an unprincipled blowhard and a terminally corrupt failure as Secretary of State. We have suffered from one amateur imperial president; let's not elect another. 

    - If you live in one of these states, please vote - generally, whether you are a Republican or not; 

    - Please forward this request to friends who live in any of these states;

    - Note that Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Minnesota, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia have "Open Primaries" where all can vote. "Unaffiliated" voters can vote in the Republican primaries in Massachusetts and North Carolina. Ohio voters can select their party on election day.   

    - Most of these states allocate delegates proportionally (including by congressional district), so every vote counts;

    - Texas is particularly important, with 155 delegates, a 20% hurdle rate to get any delegates and a 50% level to get all of the delegates; 

    -  A "stop Trump" objective also calls for somebody else carrying the "winner take all" states of Florida (Rubio) and Ohio (Kasich). 

      This is a chance for Republicans and independents to make a difference.  Let's get a nominee that we can be proud of. 

                                                                                   -----

     March 2 - Alabama (50); Alaska (28); Arkansas (40); Georgia (76); Massachusetts (42); Minnesota (38); Oklahoma (43); Tennessee (58); Texas (155); Vermont (16); Virginia (49). 

    March 5 - Kansas (40); Kentucky (46); Louisiana (46); Maine (23).

   March 6 - Puerto Rico (23)

   March 8 - Hawaii (19); Idaho (32); Michigan (59); Mississippi (40). 

    March 12 - District of Columbia (19)

    March 15 - Florida (99); Illinois (69); Missouri (52); North Carolina (72); Ohio (66).  

Italics indicates caucuses. 

  Bill Bowen 

 

The Republican Hope: Changing the Game

    Note to the Republican establishment - if you cannot win the game that you are playing, re-think the game. 

    This may be a little bit ahead of the general consensus, but there are two paths to the Republican presidential nomination, and only Donald Trump looks to be able to win on the first path -  getting a majority of delegates from the primaries and caucuses. The others, particularly Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, are dependent upon the second path - splitting the vote in the remainder of the contests and sending the decision to the July convention, a result that hasn't happened since Thomas Dewey was nominated in 1948.  That is a difficult assessment because of the complexity of the process in each of the states and the the lack of reliable polling on a state-by-state basis. The premise relies on the assumption that Cruz will retain the loyalty of the true conservatives, that Rubio will retain the loyalty of the moderates, that Trump has a ceiling of about 40%, and that Trump can be denied victories in a number of key states, keeping him from the 1237 needed for nomination.  Let's try that analysis.    

    First a brief tutorial on the Republican delegate selection process.

    The Republican National Committee has a role in setting up the game, but they in no way control it - unlike the Democrats where 20% of "super-delegates" represent interest groups, the voting RNC members make up about 7%. In allocating delegates among the states and territories each state gets a base of 10 delegates, plus three for each congressional district, plus three for the state party leaders (territories get a bit less.) States which voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 also get get 4.5 plus .6 times their number of electoral votes. Each also gets one for each Republican senator and governor, one for each state legislative chamber controlled by Republicans, and one if half or more of the Congressional delegation is Republican. Overall, this tilts the table a bit to the more conservative states and the smaller states - up with Mississippi; down with New York.

    Within the states is where the professional operatives make their money. How the states select their delegates is up to the state party - except that RNC rules stipulate that states voting after March 15 must select their at large delegates on a "winner take all" basis. Some use caucuses which favor core activists; a few use state or district conventions which favor the real core activists; most use primaries - some open to non-Republicans.  A few are fully "winner take all" (including Ohio, Florida, Arizona, and New Jersey ); most states contain "at large" delegates which are proportional or winner take all and district delegates which are generally winner take all; most have thresholds of 15 to 50% to qualify for proportional allocations. Some of the state party leader delegates are obligated to follow the vote; most are not. Most result in state delegations with delegates for two or more candidates.  

    A few other factors are at play. Given all of this complexity there is a benefit for the campaign with a strong ground game - not only for getting out the vote, but also for ensuring that there is strength in each district. Recruitment of delegates is also important for discipline at the national convention and in Illinois where the named delegates are on the ballot. As the pace accelerates in March adverting (and money) becomes more important as do the Political Action Committees. Most of the pundits do not understand the complexity, and look predominantly at who wins a state rather than how many delegates they actually get. (Perhaps the best analyst can be found at FiveThirtyEight.com.)

    A brief look at the calculus: 

        - The first four states have given Trump 81, Rubio 17, Cruz 17, and others 16. Trump received 6.5% of what he needs; 5.4% have been allocated. 

        - Super Tuesday, March 1, in a set of states largely favorable to Trump and Cruz, will yield 661, all from states which allocate proportionally. The big prize is Texas which has about a quarter of that total, and has a 20% hurdle to get any delegates. If Cruz wins Texas with Rubio passing the 20% hurdle, and Trump peaks around 40% in the rest of the states, this round could come out with Trump getting something like 350. Trump suffers if Cruz does well. Cumulatively Trump would have 35% of what he needs with 32 % allocated.

        - Between March 5 and March 12 there are 11 proportional elections in states and territories still generally favorable to Trump and Cruz, yielding 356 delegates. If Trump gets 250, he would have a cumulative 55% of what he needs with 46% allocated. 

        - March 15 with 367 delegates - and the shift to "winner take all" elections - will determine whether Trump can be stopped. If he loses Ohio's 66 (presumably to Kasich) and Florida's 99 (presumably to Rubio), he might win another 100, bringing him to 63% of what he needs with 61% allocated.

        - From there until June 7 it gets more difficult for Trump, with the large states of California, New York, and Pennsylvania proving more favorable to the moderate Rubio. There is also a nuance that as the contest moves into more blue states each congressional district gets three delegates regardless of the number of Republicans in the district (in most cases) - thus Rubio can carry more delegates with fewer votes than can a candidate whose strength is in heavily Republican districts. 

    And a few comments on the convention: delegates are bound for only the first round, and the three delegates for each state and territory's RNC members (168) are generally free agents. Most importantly, this is all moot unless Rubio and Cruz  stop attacking each other in a futile effort to be the single non-Trump candidate - and we may have seen a bit of that in the February 25 debate.  

    That's all probably too wonkish, but there is hope for the anti-Trump establishment types - at least until March 15. 

                                                                        -----

    This week's video provides a background on the president's ongoing policy of releasing prisoners from Guantanamo. 

bill bowen - 2/26/16

     

    

   

       

       

   

    How California should be played - not just an ATM

        - 172 delegates - how determined.

        - State leadership of campaign - 

        - Facebook page - counties interested; a chance to register Republicans 

        - State convention

        -

    

If Donald Meets Hillary

     OK!!!  OK, already !!!!  With Donald Trump leading comfortably in all of the polls (except the latest outlier  WSJ/NBC poll) and three quarters of Republicans anticipating that he will be the nominee, it is time to think about him going head to head with Hillary. It is way too hard to envision him as President Trump, but it is worth getting one's head around Nominee Trump.

    Let's start in the easiest place - foreign policy. The New York real estate mogul who has some gambling and resort connections in the Caribbean and knows folks in Monaco and Macao versus the former Secretary of State who has met with every important foreign leader in the past 30 years.  By winning this discussion Trump can obliterate Hillary's perceived "experience" advantage which has lurked in the background unchallenged in a Democratic debate season which has focused on ways to expand the federal government and take down the evil rich. As strange as it seems, foreign policy should be Hillary's greatest vulnerability.

    Carly Fiorina started down this road a few months ago, but nobody was listening to her beyond her clever tag line that frequent flyer miles do not equate to accomplishments. Trump has a different skill - he understands the use of pithy statements to strike at central unspoken truths which most people understand, and he yells them. Get ready for the breakout puncturing of the competence balloon.

    Let's take a short tour of the world before and after Hillary:

        - Trump can start with the Middle East and an unlikely and uncomfortable turn for most Republicans - Hillary voted for the Iraq War while Trump claims that he opposed it. Obama and Clinton snatched defeat from the jaws of a hard won victory by removing all US forces, watching a Shia government align with Iran to marginalize the Sunnis, and opening the door for ISIS. Trump will sound like Bernie Sanders about the decision to go in and Lindsey Graham about the decision to get out. Trump can have it both ways.

        - Hillary will own Libya. Her State Department advocated for the removal of Gaddafi without a plan for his replacement. She and the President fumbled Benghazi - leaving diplomats unprotected, refusing to come to their aid, "leading from behind", and lying to the public about the cause of the attack.

        - Syria - the greatest humanitarian disaster in a half century - over 250,000 killed; millions of refugees; foundations of the European Union challenged. The blame rests mainly with President Obama - "Assad must go" with no plan; the "red line" with no consequences; inability to mobilize the Sunni Arabs, the Turks, the Kurds, and NATO. If Hillary makes a break with the administration, this will be it, otherwise she owns ISIS.  But then she has to explain where she was when the decisions were made.

        - Egypt - She supported the overthrow and prosecution of a long time US ally and stood by while the Army reasserted control.

        - The much-hyped "re-set" with Russia.  After a few tests of the Obama/Clinton weakness, Putin acted in the Ukraine, then in Syria. Eastern Europe remains exposed. This is one area where Trump is probably right - Putin would treat him very differently.

        - The diplomatic initiative with Mexico and Central America to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. What initiative?

        - The abandonment of the Keystone XL Pipeline - with its required State Department approval - and the vision of North American energy independence. And the good will of the Canadians.

        - The "pivot to Asia" with the only tangible result being the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement which she once championed and now opposes. And the increasingly fortified Chinese presence in the South China Sea.

        - Let's have somebody come forward who claims a better relation with the United States from Hillary's time at State - the Saudis?; the Brits? the Germans?; the Japanese? the Indians? the Pakisanis? OK, maybe the Cubans.

    While Trump isn't really a process guy, there are easy pickings there too.

        - The e-mails are the obvious place to start. Lawyers view it as a question of whether her violation of the laws on protecting secrets (and perhaps maintaining public records) rises to the level justifying prosecution, but that is not the question. The FBI may recommend indictment, but the Democratic Attorney General and the president will not initiate a war with their candidate. What the public understands is that she used her own server to avoid scrutiny and that doing so exposed deliberations and sources of information to our adversaries. The Russians knew our thinking on the Ukraine; they knew what we would accept in Syria. The Chinese listened in on administration discussions of Snowden's exposure of NSA practices. More important to the intelligence community, sources of information were exposed in Hillary's e-mails.  People probably died and the CIA's ability to recruit informants was greatly compromised.

        - And the Clinton Foundation - with Bill taking large fees from foreigners with business before the State Department - Uranium One for one easy example. Expect a blunt conversation about what donors expect in return for their largess. Bernie Sanders is making a big point of Wall Street donors; foreign donors are more universally offensive - and illegal.  Trump is a believable expert on why people donate to politicians.

    - Maybe there is even a barb about things as simple as the "Reset" button - mistakenly translated "overcharged" - which Hillary gave to Soviet Foreign Minister Lavrov. One can hear Trump mocking rank incompetence.

    Others have more experience in foreign policy - Marco Rubio who is on the Senate Armed Services Committee or John Kasich who served on the House Armed Services Committee. Rubio has called her unqualified because she lied to the relatives of the men killed at Benghazi, but that has pretty much been ignored in the swirl of competing stories.  Trump cannot be ignored.  

                                                                                           -----

   In answer to the current assault on capitalism by the Bernie Sanders Left,  this week's bonus, is a welcome takedown of a young Phil Donahue whose rant about income inequality runs into the wisdom of Milton Friedman.

bill bowen - 2/18/16

The Republican Debates Writ Large

    They may not compare to the Lincoln-Douglas debates - I didn't attend and Fox didn't carry them - but the 2016 Republican presidential debates will certainly be remembered as a classic in American political history. Some thoughts:

    Republicans have completely captured the political discussion. Past televised presidential debates have drawn an audiences of 5 to 8 million viewers; these have drawn an average of 17.4 million for the Republicans; the Democrats have been about half of that. The swing state of Iowa presented good evidence that the interest can translate into votes - the 2008 caucuses drew 220,000 Democratic voters and 119,000 Republican voters; in 2016 the Democrats were down 50,000 and the Republicans were up 65,000. Similarly in New Hampshire, the Republican turnout was up 18% from 2008 while the Democratic turnout was down 12%.  The Democrats, who had originally tried to downplay head-to-head confrontations have decided to add four more of their own.   

    The surfeit of candidates has actually been a blessing, maintaining viewers for the extended process. The Democrats have Hillary and Bernie - first avoiding any controversy, and then throwing well-worn barbs with little "new news" or suspense. With the Republican "undercard" there has been the ongoing question of who would be thrown off of the island; what would the Donald do if he showed up; would those falling behind in the polls attack strategic opponents; would a gaffe knock out a contender as with Rick Perry in 2012? With Trump blowing away political correctness, tough subjects actually get discussed. It is made for the times - a blend of "Survivor" and "The Apprentice" - and only for one season.

    The debates have also been good for serious observers. 

        - Those who began with a generic preference for governors over senators and amateurs are now getting beyond the polish of the orators. In talking about medical care for veterans, some of the candidates talk about having met wounded warriors at town hall meetings; the governors talk about what they have done in their states to establish meaningful programs. Bush and Christie can talk about their experience with natural disasters. The governors can explain why they accepted or rejected Obama's Medicaid expansion. The discussion gets beyond how much taxes have been lowered and how many jobs were created to examples of what governors actually do.

        - After two months the public has become accustomed to seeing two Cubans and an African American doctor argue about things which have little to do with being Cuban or African American. They are just Republicans who have risen to the upper tier of their party. The subtle implication for Mexicans, Guatemalans, Puerto Ricans and African Americans has to change their view of the party. A bit of this happened with Bobby Jindal for awhile; also a bit with Carly Fiorina. On the Republican side young viewers see a range of ages; on the Democratic side they see their grandparents.  At the top level, the Republicans are the party of diversity.

        - The Democratic meme that the Republicans have no ideas is dead. Everything is on the table, and the nuances of differences are argued in detail. Candidates like Bush and Cruz have detailed proposals for just about everything, and several candidates are learning to give brief answers with referrals to their web sites. Admittedly, the Donald is weak on details, but the winner will have heard every argument battle tested and will know the logical and polling strengths and weaknesses of each.  

            --  The immigration debate  begins with "secure the border" and ends with a path to legal status, with flavors of removal and return.

            -- The ISIS argument - one of Hillary's great "experience" exposures - includes a consensus for greater engagement and a stronger military, different views on Saudi Arabia and the Kurds, the limits of air power, and the importance of Sunni allies. 

            -- Positions on abortion range from the purist "life begins at conception"; to exceptions for rape and incest; to protection in the third trimester; to a unilateral decision by the woman. Handled properly, most Americans would not agree with the extremist "partial birth abortion"  position that Planned Parenthood and the  Democratic candidate will espouse. The issue will e used or not as the candidate sees best. 

           -- There is enough discussion of taxes, the Iran nuclear deal, climate change, Obamacare, and any other issue to satisfy the greatest policy wonk.  Most try to draw contrasts with Obama and his third term as Hillary; as Bernie Sanders rises and Hillary tacks left, the contrast gets even better.  

       - Among the most striking results - Ted Cruz was able to win in Iowa after opposing the federal mandate to include ethanol in gasoline.  A political profile in courage - at least with staunch, unyielding conservatives. 

      The Christie - Rubio dust-up about whether President Obama is ideologically misdirected or just incompetent will be remembered for Rubio's robotic repetition of his talking point and it has certainly stopped his path to consolidating the moderate voters. Both are right, but Christie's debating skills are superior and he has the obvious examples of the Veterans Administration, Fast and Furious, the Stimulus Plan, the roll out of Obamacare, Syria, Libya, and on and on. It would have been nice if this had been a theme for more discussions.  Some of us think that we are lucky that the ideological Obama was incompetent.

    The Donald has certainly tapped into a mood of discontent after seven years of the domestic and international failures of the Obama administration. To the extent that his presence has contributed to the unprecedented opportunity to expose the American public to Republican ideas and the diversity of the party's leadership, Reince Priebus owes him a debt of gratitude. On the other hand, he might not have broken upon the scene if not for the free opportunity to speak directly with millions. Whether we can avoid having him as the spokesman remains to be seen.

                                                                                              ------  

   This week we have Chris Christie's last hurrah which ended Marco Rubio's consolidation of the moderate segment of Republican voters. 

bill bowen - 2/10/2016

 

 

 

Obamacare as a 2016 Campaign Issue

    In broad strokes, two of Barack Obama's largest legacies will be ISIS and Obamacare. Hillary Clinton cannot get away from the ISIS legacy - she helped construct and implement the policies which led to the rise of radical Islamic terrorism. However, as she tries to thread the needle between being the successor to a president who still has substantial popularity within the Democratic party, and being a candidate adequately acceptable to the surprisingly energized progressive wing of the party, she does have a choice between supporting (with a few changes) the healthcare system which has been the cornerstone of the Democratic establishment's domestic policies for the past seven years and Bernie Sanders' true progressive vision of government-run "Medicare for all."  Before the election cycle is over, this will be a big deal. 

    Three years in, the country has had enough experience with Obamacare to allow a fact-based discussion. Overall popularity remains underwater by 8 to 10 % for several reasons:

        - Since open enrollment began in October of 2013, some 10 million people have enrolled for subsidized payments through state or federal exchanges, and 14 million have been added to Medicaid rolls in the states which chose expanded coverage. The uninsured rate has dropped from about 16% to something over 10%, where it may have settled.  Some 20 % of the uninsured are non-citizens (legal or illegal). Low income working families currently make up the bulk of the uninsured.  

        - The two dozen taxes associated with Obamacare cost some $80 billion annually, and have been a significant contributor to the unusually slow and tepid recovery from the 2008 recession.  

        - Healthcare costs have continued to rise at a rate well above inflation, and United Healthcare, the largest insurer, will most likely stop selling policies on the Obamacare exchanges.  

        - The mandate that everybody must buy insurance to protect the insurance companies who must cover "preexisting conditions" does not work. The Orwellian-named "shared responsibility payment" for those not purchasing healthcare has increased from $95 in 2014, to $325 in 2015, to $695 in 2016. Some day there will be an audit of how thoroughly the mandate has been enforced.  

        - The mix of Medicare, Medicaid, employer-paid insurance, personally-paid insurance, and government-run exchanges with co-pays, deductibles, and coverage limits is complex beyond the ability of the average citizen to navigate, either for those interested in public policy or for those managing a personal checkbook. Fortunately, headache medicine is covered. 

        - When the federal government designs a mandated set of coverages for everybody, there will inherently be impositions on individual liberty, whether the Supreme Court accepts them or not. 

      Healthcare has been a tricky territory for Hillary since President Bill put her in charge of his administration's ill-fated signature initiative in 1993. Like Obamacare, the plan worked through the private sector, requiring employer-funded levels of coverage, and contained subsidies for the poor. There is no question that she understands all of the policy nuances and what is achievable politically; her decision to stand firm against Sanders' $1.4 trillion plan with its 2.2% increase for all taxpayers and 6.2% tax on companies reflects realism, but forms a significant part of the rift with the progressive wing of the party. When one ponders the 84% support that Sanders received from those under 30 in Iowa, one suspects that the Millenials prefer more free stuff to the requirement that they buy something that they do not want.   

    On the Republican side, everybody agrees with "Repeal" and cheers when Congress passes another symbolic effort, but there is no discussion of nuanced differences. Most candidates web sites have an innocuous plank for healthcare, but  Trump and  Cruz don't even bother. For now there isn't even enough difference between the candidates to form the basis of an attack on policy or personal history. 

    But in the general election, healthcare will be one of the handful of key issues. Hillary, having passed on the left wing enthusiasm for the government option, will be wedded to Obamacare with a few twists. The Republicans will have a passel of new things to talk about - health saving accounts, buying insurance across state lines, medical tort reform, government pools for high risk patients, tax credits for healthcare accounts, and a list of things from conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and  the Pacific Research Institute. And they will have a House of Representatives ready to deliver what the Republican candidate promises. 

    Advantage "R". 

                                                                                -----

    This week we have two videos from readers - Freshman Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse's powerful explanation of why Donald Trump is not a conservative; and a humorous advertisement from DNC pharmaceuticals for the key to Hillary Clinton's election. 

bill bowen - 2/5/16