This should be the last debate with 20 candidates. It is an unwieldy way to run an election and it is wasteful of air time.
It's hard to grade performances across two nights, especially when half of the candidates are not serious. So I'm going to rank the 20 candidates from most to least likely to be elected president next year. I will give each of them two grades-one for how they performed tactically-that is whether or not they advanced their cause in the short term. And then a separate grade for how they performed strategically-that is did they enhance their actual chances of becoming president (or enhancing their long term political prospects.) At some point, I will stop giving strategic great because half of these people are running to boost their speaker fees and maybe land a TV gig.
1. Biden Tactical A-, Strategic, B+
Biden drew a lot of heat, just as he did last time. But this time he was prepared. He wasn't in full command of the facts, but he withstood a lot of heat. He is past his prime. But he's probably got enough left in the tank to win this race.
2. Harris Tactical: B-, Strategic: B.
Harris obviously listened to all the good press she got after attacking Biden in the first debate. Tonight she seemed unprepared to receive the same kind of fire from everyone else on the stage. She was the star of the fist debate, she was middling tonight.
That said, I'm bullish on her candidacy. I think she made a big mistake by committing to a huge tax cut as the centerpiece of her campaign, but her health plan is pretty solid and she doesn't alienate independents with her talking points.
3. Warren Tactical B+, Strategic: C.
She landed a lot of good blows on Delaney and some other irrelevancies. That won her the night, but she also expressed some really dumb ideas. That will catch up to her if she's the nominee.
4. Sanders Tactical: B, Strategic: C
His talking points are so vapid that I can't believe people still want him to be president. That's my analysis.
5. Buttigieg Tactical: A, Strategic: A-.
He is good in this format. He's calm and clever and very reassuring. I still think he's a long shot but I think he has elevated his long term prospects more than anyone in the field. If a Democrat wins, he will get an important job.
6. Inselee Tactical: A-, Strategic: A.
He's got an issue that resonates with the base and a demeanor that scores well with moderates. He's a long shot, I won't count him out now.
7. Klobuchar Tactical: B, Strategic: B+
She remains my preferred candidate but there is no getting around the fact that she is boring in this format. Her message should be resonating more-she really is the strongest candidate to beat Trump but it seems unlikely that she will get that chance. I really hope she gets the remaining donors needed to participate in the 3rd debates in Houston, because I think she might do better on a smaller stage.
8. Booker Tactical B+, Strategic: B+
He had a few good moments. He has a lane, but he's not doing much to seize it.
9. Castro Tactical; A-, Strategic: B
He is a good debater and would make a good President some day. But it's hard to think of what demographic he connected with tonight.
10. Bullock Tactical: A-, Strategic: B+
He was good on substance but middling on style. He probably won't make the next debate stage, but if he does, I hope he rehearses getting his talking points out.
11. Beto O'Rourke: Tactical: C+, Strategic: B.
It's easy to forget that he's running in this race. But he made some good points about why he would be a good general election candidate. He already qualified for the next debate, which will be in Texas.
12. John Delaney: Tactical: A
Delaney was annoying and, at times, petulant. But he had one job-to get camera time and to beat the drum for centrism. He gamed the system well-the rules reward making attacks against specific candidates, which invites cross fire. He looked dumb in one or two moments and he's probably doomed to be a punchline down the line. But last night everyone on social media was amazed at how much face time he got. It seemed odd, but it was deliberate.
That said, he's never going to be president. And he doesn't have a long term future in politics. This is an ego campaign by a very rich man. That ego got stroked last night, and he might have made some points that get picked up by Biden or even Harris down the line.
13. Michael Bennett: Tactical: B+
He did fine. And nobody cares. He's not going to become president and he is probably hurting his long term national prospects.
14. Tim Ryan: Tactical: C.
He's a meat head. That's my analysis.
15. Andrew Yang Tactical: B.
He was terrible in the first debate, merely unremarkable this time. He's probably going to wind up with a niche platform going forward. If he's serious about his ideas, he will run for a house seat sometime. But I think he's better suited to being an Internet intellectual.
16. John Hickenlooper. Tactical: C
I think his name is John. Maybe it's Jon. Please don't tell me. It's better not to know.
17. Kristen Gillibrand: Tactical: C.
She is a scrapper. She just sucks at it. Before tonight I thought for sure she would be dropping out soon, but he came loaded for bear tonight and unloaded some heavy smack on Biden. I do not think she has accepted that this race is futile yet. Hopefully not making the cut for debate #3 will provide her that clarity.
18. Bill de Blasio Tactical: D
It's amazing for a politician to be this unlikeable and transparently phony. But we must remember that he's only in Gracie Mansion and on this stage because of Anthony Weiner's dick pics. Fuck him.
19. Gabbard: Tactical: B
She's hard to grade, because I don't know what her agenda is. If she's trying to promote the cause of peace, well then I guess she said some of the right things. But it seems that her real agenda, for reasons known only to her, was to take out Kamala Harris. She unloaded the oppo research on her but to what effect?
You're going to hear more and more speculation about her real motivations as time goes by. I'm reserving judgment for now. But I sleep well knowing that's not going to be the nominee and that she apparently doesn't intend to run for another term in the House.
20. Marianne Williamson Tactical: A-.
She got a few good lines in. The audience applauded her, especially her answer on reparations. She is going to have a very soft landing out of this-she'll grow her base of fans and she'll write more books and what-not in the future. Maybe she will get a talk show or some other platform that no one with her dangerous vies on vaccines and mental health should ever have.
She got some good buzz last night but she will never get above 2 percent in any national poll. And that is the difference between the political parties-Democrats like and admire their hippy aunts, but Republicans vote for their racist uncles.
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Quick Thoughts on the Democratic Debate Lottery
Tomorrow night CNN will hold a live draw for the next Democratic debate. The first debate draw was done privately and was completely random. That resulted in an imbalanced division of the major candidates, with Warren hogging the first night and the other four debating each other on the second night. For this second set of debates, the candidates will be divided into three tiers. Each debate will get:
1. Two each among Biden, Harris, Sanders and Warren.
2. Three each among Buttigieg, Booker, Castro, Kloubuchar, O'Rourke and Yang.
3. Five each among: Bennet, Bullock, de Blasio, Delaney, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Hickenloper, Inslee, Ryan and Williamson.
Let's ignore the middling candidates and the kiddy table folks. One or two of them will have a good night, but very few people will be tuning in to see them. The main question is how will the top four candidtes be divide? There are only three possible permutations of leading candidates. Here are my thoughts on each, with a brief word about which order would be more ineresting.:
1. Biden and Harris // Sanders and Warren.
Biden versus Harris would be built up as a rematch of the most memorable exhange from the first debate. Hopefully this time Biden will come prepared. Harris might prefer to be matched with one of the other choices, since she already got her licks in on Biden. Or she might look at it as her chance to firm up her sanding among the moderate wing, while Elizaberth Warren and Bernie get framed as the left-wing prospects on the other night.
Both of these pairings will bring in a good audience. If I'm Warren, I want to go on the second night because last time Harris carried the news cycle for several days after Warren's strong performance against the tomato cans she drew on opening night.
2. Biden and Sanders // Harris and Warren.
A good old-fashioned guys versus dolls scenario. Bernie probably wants to pummel Biden using his 2016 Hillary playbook. But that will feel very tired and I think Harris and Warren would wind up collectively elevating the discourse in their debate. If this is the draw, then Harris and Warren will want to be second. Let the old white guys get the stage warm for them, and then try to bring the discussion into the 21st century.
If this is the draw, I really hope it's Biden/Sanders on the first night, followed by Warren and Harris on the second. I think Biden and Sanders will make each other look old, especially if Buttigieg and or Beto are on the stage with them.
3. Biden and Warren // Harris and Sanders.
This is probably the comination that CNN would most want to avoid. But this is the one I am rootinng for. Biden and Warren have some very substantive beef that goes back to when Biden was reffered to as the senator from MBNA and Warren was a bankruptcy scholar at Harvard Law. Biden was a driving force behind the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code and Warren made her reputation as a public academic by decrying that very law. I doubt the CNN panelists know much about this so it might be a wasted story line, but I'm pretty sure Senator Warren will force some part of the conversation on to this terrain. She is chomping at the bit to tell the world that Joe Biden was on the side of credit card companies. She knows better than anyone the high human cost of those "reforms."
Warren will clean Biden's clock with facts and figures. He might come prepared for Harris this time, but he cannot match Warren's economic sophistication. Biden will probably be hoping that foreign affairs are a prominent part of the debate in this permutation. But my money would be on Warren forching him to talk about middle class economics. And that is her strength.
If Biden draws Warren, he will want it to be on the first night. He can't take another extended news cycle about him getting his ass kicked by a woman. CNN would rather have this on the second night, because the substance of their exchanges will be a lot more compelling than Bernie vs. Kamala.
Sunday, June 30, 2019
After the First Debate: 2020 Democratic Field, Take 5
The first Democratic debates were held this week and the field has officially been shaken up. Kamala Harris laid a big heavy glove on the front-runner and now the betting markets have the race as essentially even between three candidates-Biden, Harris and Warren. I will discuss how each candidate did and then list my new power rankings.
I. Five Candidates Who Helped Themselves, At Least a Little.
1. Kamala Harris. She came hunting for Joe Biden and stalked him at the perfect moment. Joe should have been prepared for this, but he wasn't. You do not want to run the Democratic primary for president on a position of "Civil Rights is a state and local issue." But that's where Kamala put him. She had been pretty stagnant in the polls. It will be interesting to see if that changes now, because she will have a bullseye on her back at the next debate. I expect she will come prepared to defend the inevitible attack on her record as Attorney General of California. The one good thing about our absurdly long primary process is that everyone gets a turn in the barrell.
2. Elizabeth Warren. She caught a bit of a break in the candidate lottery and was the only top tier candidate on the stage Wednesday. She did not squander the spotlight, although her glowing reviews only lasted for 24 hours.
3. Pete Buttigieg. I have been dismissive of his candidacy. I still do not think that being mayor of South Bend makes you qualified to be President of the Untied States. But he was prepared for this glaring weakness-the state of South Bend's police department. He took the questions seriously and owned up to his failures. He also resisted the temptation to tell Swalwell to STFU when he started spouting off at him from the cheap seats. He may not be ready for the Oval Office yet, but I would like to see him in one of those jobs that will prepare him for it one day-maybe ambassador to the UN.
4. Julian Castro. Castro knew he had to move up the pile, at least by one rung and he decided that Beto O'Rourke would be that run to climb over. He did well and I think he might get a modest boost in the polls. But he remains a long shot.
5. Amy Klobuchar. She has been my preferred candidate from the start, so maybe she bleongs in the tier below this one. But she was serious and thoughtful and might benefit some from Biden's glass jaw being tagged. She's going to need to stand out in the second debate to not fall off the list of serious candidates.
II. Six Candidates Who Helped Themselves But It Does Not Matter.
On the first night, John Delaney an Bill de Blasio both did a reasonable job of getting their points across. They needed to be heard and they were. But they will not be president of the United States anytime soon. Eric Swalwell took a similar tack on the second debate to a similar result.
Michael Bennet did well on the second night but it's really hard to imagine how he gets any traction in this crowded field. He probably would have been a solid VP choice if he didn't run and maybe he's hoping the solid debate perofrmances will elevate his profile as a senator down the road.
The Two Governors in the field-Jay Inslee and John Hickenlooper also had competent but uninspiring nights. They deserve to remain in their current jobs, which is a sort of compliment, I guess.
III. Three Candidates Who Hurt Their Chances of Being President.
1. Joe Biden. Mike Tyson once said of a vanguished opponent "Everybody's got a plan until the get hit." Biden's plan was to ride the popularity of his former boss to the nomination and the unpopularity of his opponent to the Oval Office. Things will not be that simple. He now has to come up with a narrtive that explains why he was opposed to busing for some reason other than being a bigot. There are many thoughtful critques of busing, and he might be able to cobble together an explanation. The problem is that he talked about this issue a lot over the years and it will not be hard for his opponents to make him look bad. That goes for the general election too. Donald Trump is so stupid he seemed to think the question of busing related to what type of transportation kids take to and from school. But his noise machine will not be afraid to run Facebook ads claiming that Biden is a bigot, just as they did against Hillary Clinton. This is a real problem.
I also think that his age showed poorly that night. Is this someone you want to be President nine and a half years from now? It's a fair question.
2. Bernie Sanders. Allowing 20 candidates to debate is a joke. The Democrats have committed to do so at least twice. That struck me as crazy but I think there may be some method to the madness-Bernie got a lot of mileage from being the only opponent on the stage against Hillary Clinton. But in a crowded stage, Bernie repeating his simplisitc solution to everything-"Stand up to Wall Street!" sounded really fucking stupid. He didn't direct that attack at any candidate, probably because he's not sure who is rivals are yet. (He mighat have tried to go after Warren if they were on the same night.) The result was that his words just felt like a vaccuous drone.
The Democrats do have a Bernie problem, though. He is not running to win. He is running to continue the process of shifting the paty leftward and creating a genuinely Leftist lane in American presidential politics. That means he will not drop out, even if the nomination has been sewn up by a more serious person. One year from now, he might just be a huge pain in everyone's ass.
3. Beto O'Rourke. Biden was unprepared for one specific thing. Beto was both unprepared and underwhelming. He does not seem to have figured out how to ramp-up his senate campaign into a national one.
4. Corey Booker. I mean, he wasn't terrible. People inclined to like him, thought he did fine. But it's hard to see his support growing off of that performance. He has a better chance than Klobuchar or O'Rourke of surviving past the early states but I think he is also a long shot.
IV. Six Candidates Who Performed Poorly But It Doesn't Really Matter.
Tulsi Gabbard did a decent job of sounding like the candidate of peace but she never seems fully engaged with her surrounding and frankly gives off the vague vibe of someone who was raised in a cult and/or is overly sympathetic to Russia and the Taliban. Tim Ryan managed to get the worst of an exchange with her whee he was taking the anti-Taliban position. That does not auger well for his chances in this race but he also seemed to be running for some nebulous "voice of the Rust Belt" job that doesn't actually exist.
Eric Swalwell was smarmy and gruff. I don't expect anyone to rally around that cause now. Andrew Yang straight-up choked. He didn't bother to wear a tie and he had nothing interesting to say. He did not belong on that stage.
Kirsten Gillibrand gets points for making an effort to be involved but all of her interjections fell flat because everyone knows that she is a dead-flat scratch in almost every single poll-national or statewide. She recently got zero percent in a poll of Democratic primary voters in Florida. That is impposisble for a senator from New York. (Consider that Hillary won the Florida primary by 17 points in 2008 and by 12 in 2016.) Equally baffling for a New Yorker, she is having trouble raising funds. It seems very possible that she will not qualify to be on the stage at the end of July. She is probably only doing permanent damage to her political prospects.
Marriane Willamson taught us all how to love and birthed 1,000 SNL audition tapes.
1. Amy Klobuchar
2. Elizabeth Warren
3. Kamala Harris
4. Julian Castro (5)
5. Beto O'Rourke (4)
6. Kristin Gillibrand
7. Michael Bennett (Unranked)
8. Steve Bullock (Obviously he needs to make the next debate if he wants to stick around, but I hope he does.)
9. Pete Buttigieg (13)
10. Joe Biden (8)
11. John Delaney (13)
12. John Hickenlooper (9)
13. Jay Inslee (10)
14. Corey Booker
15. Tim Ryan (11)
16. Eric Swalwell (15)
17. Seth Moulton (16)
18. Joe Sestak (Unranked)
19. Bernie Sanders (18)
20. Bill de Blasio (Unranked)
21. Wayne Messam
22. Andrew Yang (17)
23. Tulsi Gabbard (22)
24. Mike Gravel (21)
25. Marianne Williamson (20)
VI. The Horse Race, Take Five.
This is where I handicap the field and attempt to put it into an orderly system of tiers. There is a lot more movement here than in my personal preferences.
The Top Tier Candidates (Five, Up From Three Last Time)
1. Joe Biden (2)
2. Elizabeth Warren (6)
3. Kamala Harris (4)
4. Bernie Sanders (1)
5. Pete Buttigieg (3)
The Pack (Four Candidates, Down From Six Last Time)
6. Cory Booker (5)
7. Julian Castro (9)
8. Beto O'Rourke (7)
9. Amy Klobuchar (8)
Flawed and/or Floundering (Six Candidates, Down From Eight Last Time)
10. Michael Bennett (Unranked)
11. Kristen Gillibrand (10)
12. Jay Inslee (13)
13. John Hickenlooper (12)
14. John Delaney
15. Tim Ryan (11)
Long Shots
16. Steve Bullock (19)
17. Bill de Blasio (Unranked)
18. Joe Sestak (Unranked)
19. Tulsi Gabbbard (16)
20. Seth Moulton (17)
21. Eric Swalwell (15)
Train Wrecks
22. Andrew Yang (18)
23. Wayne Messam (20) I misspelled his name last time, which I'm sure you all noticed and were very upset about.
24. Marrianne Williamson (21)
25. Mike Gravel (22)
I. Five Candidates Who Helped Themselves, At Least a Little.
1. Kamala Harris. She came hunting for Joe Biden and stalked him at the perfect moment. Joe should have been prepared for this, but he wasn't. You do not want to run the Democratic primary for president on a position of "Civil Rights is a state and local issue." But that's where Kamala put him. She had been pretty stagnant in the polls. It will be interesting to see if that changes now, because she will have a bullseye on her back at the next debate. I expect she will come prepared to defend the inevitible attack on her record as Attorney General of California. The one good thing about our absurdly long primary process is that everyone gets a turn in the barrell.
2. Elizabeth Warren. She caught a bit of a break in the candidate lottery and was the only top tier candidate on the stage Wednesday. She did not squander the spotlight, although her glowing reviews only lasted for 24 hours.
3. Pete Buttigieg. I have been dismissive of his candidacy. I still do not think that being mayor of South Bend makes you qualified to be President of the Untied States. But he was prepared for this glaring weakness-the state of South Bend's police department. He took the questions seriously and owned up to his failures. He also resisted the temptation to tell Swalwell to STFU when he started spouting off at him from the cheap seats. He may not be ready for the Oval Office yet, but I would like to see him in one of those jobs that will prepare him for it one day-maybe ambassador to the UN.
4. Julian Castro. Castro knew he had to move up the pile, at least by one rung and he decided that Beto O'Rourke would be that run to climb over. He did well and I think he might get a modest boost in the polls. But he remains a long shot.
5. Amy Klobuchar. She has been my preferred candidate from the start, so maybe she bleongs in the tier below this one. But she was serious and thoughtful and might benefit some from Biden's glass jaw being tagged. She's going to need to stand out in the second debate to not fall off the list of serious candidates.
II. Six Candidates Who Helped Themselves But It Does Not Matter.
On the first night, John Delaney an Bill de Blasio both did a reasonable job of getting their points across. They needed to be heard and they were. But they will not be president of the United States anytime soon. Eric Swalwell took a similar tack on the second debate to a similar result.
Michael Bennet did well on the second night but it's really hard to imagine how he gets any traction in this crowded field. He probably would have been a solid VP choice if he didn't run and maybe he's hoping the solid debate perofrmances will elevate his profile as a senator down the road.
The Two Governors in the field-Jay Inslee and John Hickenlooper also had competent but uninspiring nights. They deserve to remain in their current jobs, which is a sort of compliment, I guess.
III. Three Candidates Who Hurt Their Chances of Being President.
1. Joe Biden. Mike Tyson once said of a vanguished opponent "Everybody's got a plan until the get hit." Biden's plan was to ride the popularity of his former boss to the nomination and the unpopularity of his opponent to the Oval Office. Things will not be that simple. He now has to come up with a narrtive that explains why he was opposed to busing for some reason other than being a bigot. There are many thoughtful critques of busing, and he might be able to cobble together an explanation. The problem is that he talked about this issue a lot over the years and it will not be hard for his opponents to make him look bad. That goes for the general election too. Donald Trump is so stupid he seemed to think the question of busing related to what type of transportation kids take to and from school. But his noise machine will not be afraid to run Facebook ads claiming that Biden is a bigot, just as they did against Hillary Clinton. This is a real problem.
I also think that his age showed poorly that night. Is this someone you want to be President nine and a half years from now? It's a fair question.
2. Bernie Sanders. Allowing 20 candidates to debate is a joke. The Democrats have committed to do so at least twice. That struck me as crazy but I think there may be some method to the madness-Bernie got a lot of mileage from being the only opponent on the stage against Hillary Clinton. But in a crowded stage, Bernie repeating his simplisitc solution to everything-"Stand up to Wall Street!" sounded really fucking stupid. He didn't direct that attack at any candidate, probably because he's not sure who is rivals are yet. (He mighat have tried to go after Warren if they were on the same night.) The result was that his words just felt like a vaccuous drone.
The Democrats do have a Bernie problem, though. He is not running to win. He is running to continue the process of shifting the paty leftward and creating a genuinely Leftist lane in American presidential politics. That means he will not drop out, even if the nomination has been sewn up by a more serious person. One year from now, he might just be a huge pain in everyone's ass.
3. Beto O'Rourke. Biden was unprepared for one specific thing. Beto was both unprepared and underwhelming. He does not seem to have figured out how to ramp-up his senate campaign into a national one.
4. Corey Booker. I mean, he wasn't terrible. People inclined to like him, thought he did fine. But it's hard to see his support growing off of that performance. He has a better chance than Klobuchar or O'Rourke of surviving past the early states but I think he is also a long shot.
IV. Six Candidates Who Performed Poorly But It Doesn't Really Matter.
Tulsi Gabbard did a decent job of sounding like the candidate of peace but she never seems fully engaged with her surrounding and frankly gives off the vague vibe of someone who was raised in a cult and/or is overly sympathetic to Russia and the Taliban. Tim Ryan managed to get the worst of an exchange with her whee he was taking the anti-Taliban position. That does not auger well for his chances in this race but he also seemed to be running for some nebulous "voice of the Rust Belt" job that doesn't actually exist.
Eric Swalwell was smarmy and gruff. I don't expect anyone to rally around that cause now. Andrew Yang straight-up choked. He didn't bother to wear a tie and he had nothing interesting to say. He did not belong on that stage.
Kirsten Gillibrand gets points for making an effort to be involved but all of her interjections fell flat because everyone knows that she is a dead-flat scratch in almost every single poll-national or statewide. She recently got zero percent in a poll of Democratic primary voters in Florida. That is impposisble for a senator from New York. (Consider that Hillary won the Florida primary by 17 points in 2008 and by 12 in 2016.) Equally baffling for a New Yorker, she is having trouble raising funds. It seems very possible that she will not qualify to be on the stage at the end of July. She is probably only doing permanent damage to her political prospects.
Marriane Willamson taught us all how to love and birthed 1,000 SNL audition tapes.
V. The Spider Stumbled Power Rankings, Take Five:
These are the candidates ranked purely by my personal preferences. The number in Parenthesis indicates their rank in the Previous Rankings. The field has grown by three candidates since the last time I did these rankings. Not much movement at the top, but Buttigiege moved up by 4 spots and dear old Marrianne Williamson dropped by five.
1. Amy Klobuchar
2. Elizabeth Warren
3. Kamala Harris
4. Julian Castro (5)
5. Beto O'Rourke (4)
6. Kristin Gillibrand
7. Michael Bennett (Unranked)
8. Steve Bullock (Obviously he needs to make the next debate if he wants to stick around, but I hope he does.)
9. Pete Buttigieg (13)
10. Joe Biden (8)
11. John Delaney (13)
12. John Hickenlooper (9)
13. Jay Inslee (10)
14. Corey Booker
15. Tim Ryan (11)
16. Eric Swalwell (15)
17. Seth Moulton (16)
18. Joe Sestak (Unranked)
19. Bernie Sanders (18)
20. Bill de Blasio (Unranked)
21. Wayne Messam
22. Andrew Yang (17)
23. Tulsi Gabbard (22)
24. Mike Gravel (21)
25. Marianne Williamson (20)
VI. The Horse Race, Take Five.
This is where I handicap the field and attempt to put it into an orderly system of tiers. There is a lot more movement here than in my personal preferences.
The Top Tier Candidates (Five, Up From Three Last Time)
1. Joe Biden (2)
2. Elizabeth Warren (6)
3. Kamala Harris (4)
4. Bernie Sanders (1)
5. Pete Buttigieg (3)
The Pack (Four Candidates, Down From Six Last Time)
6. Cory Booker (5)
7. Julian Castro (9)
8. Beto O'Rourke (7)
9. Amy Klobuchar (8)
Flawed and/or Floundering (Six Candidates, Down From Eight Last Time)
10. Michael Bennett (Unranked)
11. Kristen Gillibrand (10)
12. Jay Inslee (13)
13. John Hickenlooper (12)
14. John Delaney
15. Tim Ryan (11)
Long Shots
16. Steve Bullock (19)
17. Bill de Blasio (Unranked)
18. Joe Sestak (Unranked)
19. Tulsi Gabbbard (16)
20. Seth Moulton (17)
21. Eric Swalwell (15)
Train Wrecks
22. Andrew Yang (18)
23. Wayne Messam (20) I misspelled his name last time, which I'm sure you all noticed and were very upset about.
24. Marrianne Williamson (21)
25. Mike Gravel (22)
Friday, May 24, 2019
October: The Story of the Russian Revolution by China MiévilleMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
The events of Saint Petersburg, 1917 are among the most fascinating in history. The largest and most oppressive monarchical empire in the world was over thrown by something that proved to be much, much worse. What makes this book interesting is that it was written by someone who can't quite bring himself to conced that last point.
I never heard of China Mieville before finding the handsome cover of this book. He is a gifted and confident writer who strikes the right balance between procedural detail and human drama. I have read many books on this subject, but Mievell made the material seem fresh.
Mievell concedses off the bat that he is not a neutral observer of these events. A quick Google search confirmed tha the is, even in the year of our Lord 2019, a committed Marxist. His affection for Lenin is not subtle. And it takes a little mental energy to periodically remember that the author believes in the economic equivalent of Scientology. But the story drives forward and builds to the glorious moment when a ramshackle band of second rate political theorists take over land spanning 11 time zones.
At times I was deeply annoyed by his ability to bend facts away from Lenin's faults. He seems to genuinely believe that Lenin was a pure soul with only the best intentions. It borders on the embarassing at times, but I may have read to many right-wing accounts of these same events.
In the epilogue, Mievelle does acknowledge the profound problems that revealed themselves in the decade after the October Revolution. But his thesis seems to be that those events were not an inevitible consequnce of Bolshevism. On that, I must strongly disagree. But this book is a quick read and the style is entertaining.
I will mention one annoying style clithc-Mievell is fond of using obscure words for commonly used concepts. Several times he uses a word that I've never head and then immediately saves the reader a Google by defining it. When a writer feels that is necessary, he's just showing off his Scrabble abilities. Here's a related example. In the epiloque he describes the display of Lenin's corpse as "A gnarled and ghastly relic, recieving obeisance from its catafalque.
And here, let me Google that for you. Catafalque: A decorated wooden framework supporting the coffin of a distinguished person during a funeral or while lying in state. Obeisance: deferential respect.
View all my reviews
Sunday, May 19, 2019
Thoughts on the Game of Thrones Finale
Note: this is published about 90 minutes before the Game of Thrones Series Finale. It is full of spoliers throug the first 5 episodes of season 8. I've also read the firs two books, which might inform my commentary.
Reaction to the final season of Game of Thrones has been very negative. As I write this, there is just one episode left and no one seems to think the show can stick the landing. There are just too many loose threads to tie up and we already know that certain key characters will have unsatisfying story endings.
When this truncated seasson began, I started watching the old episodes. It's been a bittersweet process. The writing and promise of the first two seasons really make season eight look worse.
There are at least three levels on which to appreciate GOT. Ian McShane famously called GOT "A show about tits and dragons." Surely the tits and the dragons brough in a lot of casual viewers. Re-watching the first two season reminded me of how shameless the "sexpostion" was in the early goings. As the show progressed, the show (and most of its audience) matured and there was less need for exploitive titalation. A slightly deeper reading of the story is that it's a story about a war. The plot is set in motion by a disput over who the rightful monarch is. And the second season starts with the War of 5 Kings. But another glaring thing about the rewatch of those episodes is how little combat is shown. When Tyrion heads off to battle for the first time, he is knocked out by accident and we learn the result, with him, after he comes to, hours after the battle. We are told that Rob Stark wins several battles against the Lannisters, but we only see glimpses of it. The show's budget and popularity eventually demanded more warfare, and we got that in a stone classic of an episode two years ago-The Battle of the Bastards. The show has twice tried to match the quality and drama of that hour this season and it failed both times.
For me, the show has always been about politics. George R.R. Martin created something truly ambititous-an entire mythology and history that reminds us of midieval Europe but inhabited by characters that are three dimensional, complicated and most of all, smart. Consider how the Starks and Lannisters can each give credulous narratives of how the war started. The Starks accused Tyrion of trying to kill Bran, but he didn't. Ned Stark assumed that Cersei killed John Arryn, whose death put in motion the action of the very first episode. But he was actually killed by his wife, Lysa, the sister of Katlyn Stark. The Starks of course would point out that Joffrey was a bastard and that their lord was killed for doing nothing more than speaking the truth. As with any great war, both sides have a narative that can become the officially history, if only they win.
Ah yes, winning. The show's title tells us this a game. From the jump, we have been rooting for team Stark and hoping that one of them winds up on the Iron Throne. I think we'll probably get that much closure tonight, although I'm not sure how the lesser story lines will end up.
Part of me wants the finale to just be a total fuck it episode. Instead of resolving the question of who gets the Iron Throne and what is to be done with Daeny now that she is crazy, we could open with a title card that says "Ten Years Later....In High Garden." Then Bronn can walk out, talking directly to the camera, "Oh hi there! I'm so glad you stopped by. Tonight we are celebrating my first decade as lord of High Garden with some old friends. You never know who might stop by." [Off camera, a large dog barks.Cut to Tormund and Wolf walking toward the castle entrance.]
But I doubt that will happen. We will probably get a conventional resolution of the big issues. I tend to think that Danerys will die, but I'm not sure how. The genius of this show was how it emphasized the importance of alliances and family. Daeny has no relatives and almost no friends. Her nephew/ lover is not goin to be able to forgive what she did last week. So she's got to go. And her dragon too. I think the best resolution might be to have her commit suicide, but I don't think they have set that up at all.
So I will watch and learn. I feel now that the show was about three sets of siblings and how each of those eleven characters have made their way through the world. I tend to do a lot of ranking on this website, so I'll close by ranking these 11 characters and give some thoughts on the ending they either got, or the ending I think they deserve to get tonight.
1. Tyrion Lannister. No one played the game better than him, rising from family outcast all the way to The Acting Hand of the King, and later the Hand of a Queen. Along the way he killed his father, had his heart broken and became cellibate for reasons that don't really make sense. Last week he betrayed Cersei in order to hopefully avert a bloodbath and hopefully spare the life of his unborn niece or nephew. Danerys will not let that stand. But dying for that sin is as fitting an ending as any I can think of.
2. Cersei Lannister. Her evolution from drunken cuckold (and cuckolder) to reigning monarch of the seven kingdoms was believable every step of the way. And then last week she watched her capital burn, helplessly, only to die in the basement of her palace. I read a lot of negative comments about how she deserved a more dramatic death than to be killed by falling debris, but it was believable to me. She put this war in motion with her ambition and the whole thing collapsed on her head.
3. Sansa Stark. It is painfully obvious that she is the most qualified monarch left on the board.The saddest thing on this show is that Sansa is going to go through eight seasons without being loved by a man. She was brutalized by Joffrey's henchman and raped by Ramsey Bolton (nee Snow). If anyone has earned a happy ending, it is Sansa Stark. She should either take the Iron Throne, serve as Jon's hand or declare the North Independent and let Brienne to commander her forces against any southern opposition.
4. Arya Stark. My favorite part of last week's episode was when Arya left the Red Keep. The Hound was right-she deserves a live that is about something other than revenge. Rewatching season two really made me appreciate how good Maisie Williams was even as a girl. Her scenes as Tywin Lannister's cup bearer are among the best of the whole series. I know some people will cringe if she rides off to Storm's End and marries Gendry, but she deserves a life like that. Gendry is a good guy and they have been through some shit together. Gendry also has no clue how to run an estate. Arya can make the Baratheons the new Tyrells-a secret matriarchy of enormous wealth.
5. Jaime Lannister. Like the above mentioned characters, Jaime goes through an exraordinary evolution in eight seasons.The Kingslayer delayed the destruction of King's Landing by about 20 years but history will just remember him as the guy who impregnated his sister four times. I think he deserved a better death than the one he got, but it's also true that his love of Cersei was the one thing he couldn't ever overcome.
6. Jon Snow. I didn't start watching this show until after the Red Wedding. But the scene in the second episode where Ned and Jon part ways hooked me for good. "You are a Stark. You don't have my name but you do have my blood." Something about that line reminded me of Obi Won telling Luke that Darth Vader killed his father. He was telling the truth, but not the whole truth. The discovery of that truth will always be one of the great story lines in television history. BUT.....as a character? He's not very complicated. I know we're supposed to get one heroe to root for even if he's dull, but I wish the show runners had allowed Jon to be something other than a do-gooder once in awhile.
7. Rob Stark. Dave and Dan are getting a lot of shit for this season, but let's not forget that they did a great job with the first three seasons of the show. Their best trick was making viewers believe that The Young Wolf was goin to win the day. In the books Rob Stark doesn't even get a single chapter from his perspective. But Dave and Dan imbued him with some humanity and Richard Madden's chemisty with Oona Chaplin really sold that story line.
8, Bran Stark. The low-key way everyone puts up with this weirdo has made me laugh multiple times in season eight. His telling Euron that he's a good man was cringe worthy but his other scenes have been good. And he was so charming before becoming the Three Eyed Raven.
9. Danerys Targaryen. She might just end up on that Iron Throne that she thinks she's entitled to before the night is over. But as, I said above, her character always felt peripheral to me. Emilia Clarke was not ready for this role when she was cast. It's worth noting that she is supposed to be 14 years old when the action begins, but HBO decided to cast an older actress for the very principled reason that they wanted to show off her breasts, a lot. Emilia's acting got better as the show went on, but she never sold me on being the breaker of chains and the writing this season did not properly set up her heel turn last week. (There's plenty of foreshadowing of it in the earlier seasons, but they mostly abandoned that as she became an obvious symbol of female strength and human virtue.)
10. Rickon Stark. Adorable child actor who only got two memorable moments-naming his wolf Shaggy Dog and being killed by an arrow because he didn't run in a zig-zag pattern. That is a very Stark death.
11. Viserys Targaryen. The actor was fine in this part but the character was just a plot device. The most interesting thing about that is the fact that he was the rightful owner of the Iron Throne. And look at what good it did him. Because the show is about politics, not legal niceties. (Good luck Jon!)
Reaction to the final season of Game of Thrones has been very negative. As I write this, there is just one episode left and no one seems to think the show can stick the landing. There are just too many loose threads to tie up and we already know that certain key characters will have unsatisfying story endings.
When this truncated seasson began, I started watching the old episodes. It's been a bittersweet process. The writing and promise of the first two seasons really make season eight look worse.
There are at least three levels on which to appreciate GOT. Ian McShane famously called GOT "A show about tits and dragons." Surely the tits and the dragons brough in a lot of casual viewers. Re-watching the first two season reminded me of how shameless the "sexpostion" was in the early goings. As the show progressed, the show (and most of its audience) matured and there was less need for exploitive titalation. A slightly deeper reading of the story is that it's a story about a war. The plot is set in motion by a disput over who the rightful monarch is. And the second season starts with the War of 5 Kings. But another glaring thing about the rewatch of those episodes is how little combat is shown. When Tyrion heads off to battle for the first time, he is knocked out by accident and we learn the result, with him, after he comes to, hours after the battle. We are told that Rob Stark wins several battles against the Lannisters, but we only see glimpses of it. The show's budget and popularity eventually demanded more warfare, and we got that in a stone classic of an episode two years ago-The Battle of the Bastards. The show has twice tried to match the quality and drama of that hour this season and it failed both times.
For me, the show has always been about politics. George R.R. Martin created something truly ambititous-an entire mythology and history that reminds us of midieval Europe but inhabited by characters that are three dimensional, complicated and most of all, smart. Consider how the Starks and Lannisters can each give credulous narratives of how the war started. The Starks accused Tyrion of trying to kill Bran, but he didn't. Ned Stark assumed that Cersei killed John Arryn, whose death put in motion the action of the very first episode. But he was actually killed by his wife, Lysa, the sister of Katlyn Stark. The Starks of course would point out that Joffrey was a bastard and that their lord was killed for doing nothing more than speaking the truth. As with any great war, both sides have a narative that can become the officially history, if only they win.
Ah yes, winning. The show's title tells us this a game. From the jump, we have been rooting for team Stark and hoping that one of them winds up on the Iron Throne. I think we'll probably get that much closure tonight, although I'm not sure how the lesser story lines will end up.
Part of me wants the finale to just be a total fuck it episode. Instead of resolving the question of who gets the Iron Throne and what is to be done with Daeny now that she is crazy, we could open with a title card that says "Ten Years Later....In High Garden." Then Bronn can walk out, talking directly to the camera, "Oh hi there! I'm so glad you stopped by. Tonight we are celebrating my first decade as lord of High Garden with some old friends. You never know who might stop by." [Off camera, a large dog barks.Cut to Tormund and Wolf walking toward the castle entrance.]
But I doubt that will happen. We will probably get a conventional resolution of the big issues. I tend to think that Danerys will die, but I'm not sure how. The genius of this show was how it emphasized the importance of alliances and family. Daeny has no relatives and almost no friends. Her nephew/ lover is not goin to be able to forgive what she did last week. So she's got to go. And her dragon too. I think the best resolution might be to have her commit suicide, but I don't think they have set that up at all.
So I will watch and learn. I feel now that the show was about three sets of siblings and how each of those eleven characters have made their way through the world. I tend to do a lot of ranking on this website, so I'll close by ranking these 11 characters and give some thoughts on the ending they either got, or the ending I think they deserve to get tonight.
1. Tyrion Lannister. No one played the game better than him, rising from family outcast all the way to The Acting Hand of the King, and later the Hand of a Queen. Along the way he killed his father, had his heart broken and became cellibate for reasons that don't really make sense. Last week he betrayed Cersei in order to hopefully avert a bloodbath and hopefully spare the life of his unborn niece or nephew. Danerys will not let that stand. But dying for that sin is as fitting an ending as any I can think of.
2. Cersei Lannister. Her evolution from drunken cuckold (and cuckolder) to reigning monarch of the seven kingdoms was believable every step of the way. And then last week she watched her capital burn, helplessly, only to die in the basement of her palace. I read a lot of negative comments about how she deserved a more dramatic death than to be killed by falling debris, but it was believable to me. She put this war in motion with her ambition and the whole thing collapsed on her head.
3. Sansa Stark. It is painfully obvious that she is the most qualified monarch left on the board.The saddest thing on this show is that Sansa is going to go through eight seasons without being loved by a man. She was brutalized by Joffrey's henchman and raped by Ramsey Bolton (nee Snow). If anyone has earned a happy ending, it is Sansa Stark. She should either take the Iron Throne, serve as Jon's hand or declare the North Independent and let Brienne to commander her forces against any southern opposition.
4. Arya Stark. My favorite part of last week's episode was when Arya left the Red Keep. The Hound was right-she deserves a live that is about something other than revenge. Rewatching season two really made me appreciate how good Maisie Williams was even as a girl. Her scenes as Tywin Lannister's cup bearer are among the best of the whole series. I know some people will cringe if she rides off to Storm's End and marries Gendry, but she deserves a life like that. Gendry is a good guy and they have been through some shit together. Gendry also has no clue how to run an estate. Arya can make the Baratheons the new Tyrells-a secret matriarchy of enormous wealth.
5. Jaime Lannister. Like the above mentioned characters, Jaime goes through an exraordinary evolution in eight seasons.The Kingslayer delayed the destruction of King's Landing by about 20 years but history will just remember him as the guy who impregnated his sister four times. I think he deserved a better death than the one he got, but it's also true that his love of Cersei was the one thing he couldn't ever overcome.
6. Jon Snow. I didn't start watching this show until after the Red Wedding. But the scene in the second episode where Ned and Jon part ways hooked me for good. "You are a Stark. You don't have my name but you do have my blood." Something about that line reminded me of Obi Won telling Luke that Darth Vader killed his father. He was telling the truth, but not the whole truth. The discovery of that truth will always be one of the great story lines in television history. BUT.....as a character? He's not very complicated. I know we're supposed to get one heroe to root for even if he's dull, but I wish the show runners had allowed Jon to be something other than a do-gooder once in awhile.
7. Rob Stark. Dave and Dan are getting a lot of shit for this season, but let's not forget that they did a great job with the first three seasons of the show. Their best trick was making viewers believe that The Young Wolf was goin to win the day. In the books Rob Stark doesn't even get a single chapter from his perspective. But Dave and Dan imbued him with some humanity and Richard Madden's chemisty with Oona Chaplin really sold that story line.
8, Bran Stark. The low-key way everyone puts up with this weirdo has made me laugh multiple times in season eight. His telling Euron that he's a good man was cringe worthy but his other scenes have been good. And he was so charming before becoming the Three Eyed Raven.
9. Danerys Targaryen. She might just end up on that Iron Throne that she thinks she's entitled to before the night is over. But as, I said above, her character always felt peripheral to me. Emilia Clarke was not ready for this role when she was cast. It's worth noting that she is supposed to be 14 years old when the action begins, but HBO decided to cast an older actress for the very principled reason that they wanted to show off her breasts, a lot. Emilia's acting got better as the show went on, but she never sold me on being the breaker of chains and the writing this season did not properly set up her heel turn last week. (There's plenty of foreshadowing of it in the earlier seasons, but they mostly abandoned that as she became an obvious symbol of female strength and human virtue.)
10. Rickon Stark. Adorable child actor who only got two memorable moments-naming his wolf Shaggy Dog and being killed by an arrow because he didn't run in a zig-zag pattern. That is a very Stark death.
11. Viserys Targaryen. The actor was fine in this part but the character was just a plot device. The most interesting thing about that is the fact that he was the rightful owner of the Iron Throne. And look at what good it did him. Because the show is about politics, not legal niceties. (Good luck Jon!)
Monday, April 22, 2019
2020 Democratic Field, Take 4
The big news this week is of course the Mueller Report. My impression is that the report demonstrates multiple instances where the president obstructed justice. The spinning of this report by Attorney General Barr was exteremely disingenuous. In a just world, Barr would resign in shame. But that is not the world we live in.
The next big event will be hearings and the testimony of Robert Mueller (and, to a less extent, Donald McGahn) will probably determine whether or not there will be impeachment hearings. If there are hearings, then the president will probably be impeached. Then it will be up to the senate. I think it's very unlikely that Trump would be convicted in a senate trial but the process should go forward.
If I had to bet right now, I would say that the President will be impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate. In fact, I think the Senate might simply refuse to hold a trial at all. That means he will most likely still be President a year from now. He will almost certainly run for re-election and if so, he will be the nominee of the Republican Party. Now, to the Democrats and their enormous field of mostly mediocre candidates.
I. THE SPIDERSTUMBLED BLOG POWER RANKINGS.
This section is just about me. These are my ranked preferences among the likely candidates. If their standing has changed since the first rankings, I put their number from the previous iteration of this list in parenthesis. Bold indicates that the candidate has already announced that they are running.
Tip of the 40 ounce to Terry McCauliffe, Chris Murphy, Andrew Cuomo, Mitch Landrieu, and Andrew Steyer who decided to sit this race out since I last published my rankings.
Four That I Would be Enthused About:
1. Amy Klobuchar.
2. Elizabeth Warren (4)
She continues to impress me with her attention to detail and creative energy. If this race was determined purely on substantive issues, I think she would win the nomination and the election. But her poll numbers continue to disappoint and her fundraising numbers were lackluster for the first quarter. I hope she stays viable and gains some traction. She has earned it.
3. Kamala Harris (2)
She is running a cautious race so far. I think she knows that she has the money and resume to stay viable and she wants to spend 2019 avoiding any incidents that might jeopardize that.
4. Beto O'Rourke (3)
Also underwhelming so far. He needs to step up his game to the national stage.
Seven That I Would Be Happy With:
5. Julian Castro (14)
This is a big jump in a tremendous field. I like his temperament and presentation so far. He strikes me as someone that will benefit from the debates, in a way similar to how John Kasich moved up the Republican polls in 2016 after just barely qualifying for the main stage of the first debate.
6. Kristin Gillibrand
I am close to writing her off. A lot of Democrats hold her principled position on Al Franken against her, which is a shame. But a senator from New York state should be better able to raise funds and attract press.
7. Steve Bullock (8) No sign that he's running but I'll leave him in for now.
8. Joe Biden
He has baggage and is a older than I think is ideal for a president, but I think his political instincts will serve him will. He has been wise to delay the announcement because he has the name recognition to allow him the luxury of sitting out the silly season.
9. John Hickenlooper (12)
10. Jay Inslee (13)
11. Tim Ryan
Four That Mean Something Went Wrong But Okay, Sure:
12. Pete Buttigieg (18)
Became a media darling by saying yes to everything. His novelty is just about to wear off, I expect, but he'll hang around for the voting, no matter what.
13. John Delaney (Unranked)
14. Corey Booker (17)
15. Eric Swalwell (Unranked)
Four That Well, I Won't Vote For Trump, So Fingers Crossed.
16. Seth Moulton (Unranked)
17. Andrew Yang (Unranked)
18. Bernie Sanders (19)
19. Wayne Messam (Unranked)
Three WHAT THE FUCK?
20. Marianne Wilamson (Unranked)
21. Mike Gravel (Unranked)
22. Tulsi Gabbard
II. The 2020 Hourse Race.
Here is what the polling shows so far: Bernie and Biden each have about a quarter of the party ready to support them. Everyone else is stuck in single digits. Buttigieg has out performed expectations and is currently in third place in most polls. Harris, Warren, O'Rourke, Booker and Klobuchar have yet to gain traction but they are the middle of the pack for now. Gillibrand, Inslee, Hickenlooper and all of the House members are the bottom tier for now. Below them, there are a handful of celebrity and novelty candidates who are just running for attention.
Because the field is so large, it might be helpful to try to think of which candidates could compete for certain voters. There are countless factors that this could be broken down by but I think the #1 issue for Democrats next year will be simple-Remove Donald Trump for office. So I think it's useful to think of these "lanes" in terms of what their appeal will be in the general election. If you like, you can think of these lanes as Left, Moderate and Centrist. But I think it's more interesting to think of them in terms of what voting blocs they would appeal to in the general election if they were the nominee.
In 2016 Donald Trump exceeded Mitt Romney's 2012 vote total but just over 2 million votes. Hillary Clinton's vote total was just 65,000 less than Barack Obama in 2012 or about 4 million less than Obama's 2008 total.
The dramatic shifts in voting patterns happened among the other candidates in the field. The Green Party and Libertarian parties nominated, respectively, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson in 2012 and 2106. The Greens increased their vote total by just under one million votes. The Libertarians increased theirs by over 3.2 million votes. Additionally, Evan McMullin got over 700,000 votes running as right-wing independent. (The 5th place finisher in 2012 got only 120K votes.)
The 2008 Obama Coaltion was an electoral marvel. It sucked up every electoral college vote that was in play. It damn near won Missouri. It held together enough to win in 2012 but it did not hold for 2016. For the rest of the 2020 cycle my analysis will discuss these three segments of the Obama Diaspora: 1. Trump or Stayed Homes 2. Soft Libertarians 3. Protest Greens.
1. SOFT LIBERTARIANS: (3.9 Million voters)
Voters who went Libertarian (or McMullin) in 2012 but not in 2012.
These are mostly people who are right of center that could not bring themselves to vote for either Trump or Hillary. I expect that Trump has won over a fair amount of them. The Democrats would win a lot of them if they nominate a centrist like Biden, but I don't think they will turn out for Bernie or anyone they perceive as either corrupt or inexperienced.
2. TRUMP OR STAYED HOME (3.7 million voters)
Obama 2008 voters who didn't vote for Hillary in 2016.
There are two sub-demographics in this group.
A. People who were upset with George W. Bush in 2008 and gave Obama a chance. He didn't keep many of them in the fold in 2012 or 2016. Some of them will probably come back in 2020 because they don't like Donald Trump personally, although that assumes that the Dems will nominate someone that they do like.
B. People who didn't turn out for Hillary in 2016. As discussed above Hillary nearly matched Obama's national vote total from 2012, but that was because of higher turnout in non-competitive states. For example, her combined vote totals in CA and TX exceeded Obama's 2012 haul by 1.468 million. But her combined totals in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin was 698,000 less than Obama in 2012. Some of those people switched over to Trump but more of them simply stayed home. Whoever the Democratic nominees is, they will know that they must turn out marginal voters in those three states.
3. PROTEST GREENS (1 million voters)
Voters who voted Green in 2016 but not in 2012.
Jill Stein tripled her vote count between 2012 and 2016, from half a million votes to 1.5 million votes. Those million votes are most likely to come home to the Democratic party but it has to be acknowledged that a centrist like Biden will pick up fewer of them than Sanders or Warren will.
These are imprecise groups. There is some double counting, especially between the first two groups. But I think it's a useful matrix for categorizing the "lanes" of the 2020 Democratic Primary. I give you our first attempt to rank the chance of each serious candidate to be the nominee, relative to others and divided by who they would most appeal to in the general election.
Note: The Red Box is intentionally blank, because I think Ryan is less likely to be the nominee than O'Rourke or Klobuchar. For that matter, I think he's less likely than Castro or Gillibrand also.
Here is the whole field, even the weirdos nobodies and proxy by grandchildren candidates, ranked from 1 to 22.
The Top Tier Candidates.
1. Bernie Sanders
2. Joe Biden
3. Pete Butigieg
The Pack. (Someone from this group will break out of IA and NH to be a contender.)
4. Kamala Harris
5. Corey Booker
6. Elizabeth Warren
7. Beto O'Rourke
8. Amy Klobuchar
9. Juan Castro
Third Tier: Plausible But Flawed And/or Floundering.
10. Kristin Gillibrand
11. Tim Ryan
12. John Hickenlooper
13. Jay Inslee
14. John Delaney.
15. Eric Swalwell
16. Tulsi Gabbard
17. Seth Moulton
Fourth Tier: Long Shots.
18. Andrew Yang
19. Steve Bullock
20. Wayne Masson
21. Marianne Wiliamson
22. Mike Gravel
I debated leavin him off, because he's not really running. But he's indulging his grandchildren in letting them run a social media campaign in his name. What a country.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth by Gitta SerenyMy rating: 5 of 5 stars
This book is a tough slog, but well worth the effort. The writing is meticulous and contains all the information that one would expect from a biography of Speer, but its purpose is both more narrow and more profound than telling the story of one life.
This book is about a man who facilitated the greatest atrocities of the last century. He alone among Hitler's inner circle owned up to being party to a henious crime. But he couldn't quite commit to living in the full truth of what he knew.
Speer was spared the noose at Nuremberg because there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he knew about the murder of six million Jews. He was sentenced to and served 20 years at Spandau for the us of slave labor on his construction projects. That leniency may have been influenced by his decison to countermand Hitler's orders to implement a scorched earth policy as the allies advanced on Berlin. That decision saved many lives and the post-war miracle of West Germany's recovery might not have happened if he didn't take those steps. But that's the second most significant storyline of Speer's life.
Sereny goes to great lengths to prove how it was almost certain that Speer knew that Jews were being murdered on an industrial scale. Speer concedes that he could have known and even should have known, but he strenously denied active knowledge of the final solution.
What's really something about the story is that Speer managed to alienate almost everyone with his stances. It's difficult for most to accept his quasi-denial of knowledge aforethought of the Holocaust. It was equally difficult for Germans of his class and generation to accept Speer's admission that he should have done more to prevent Hitler's crimes.
Although he strenously avoided condeming the German people with Hitler's crimes, he was able to acknowledge that as part of the senior leadership of Nazi Germany, he shared in the collective guilt of those crimes.
There are lots of great anecdotes about his fellow prisoners at Spandau and the unimaginable difficulties of his family. But the narrative always comes back to the myster of what Speer knew and when he knew it. And the post script puts this enormous life into very human context.
View all my reviews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)