Democrats off a cliff

Democrats are pushing each other leftward. 


They are locking in the progressive woke college town activists, but risk losing the country.

McGovern 2020.

Democratic candidates are jostling to prove they are the most progressive, the most compassionate, the most woke, the most indignant over the slow rate of progress in America.

Reminder to Democrats: the House majority was not won by winning back college towns and bright blue urban districts they had somehow lost. It was won because swing districts switched from red to blue. At the presidential level, Democrats lost because they lost swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, and North Carolina. Those states are up for grabs again.

Democrats are moving out of touch with the sensibilities of most Americans on some issues, as their positions get stretched to their limits: 

Democrats are now open to voting by people in prison. (Unpopular.)

Democrats are now open to paying financial reparations to black Americans. (Unpopular.)

Democrats are open to taking away private health insurance in order to establish Medicare For All, even if a person likes the insurance situation he or she has. (Unpopular.)

Democrats are now open to providing free health care to people here illegally. (Unpopular.)

Democrats say that even very late term abortions should be available to any woman, based on her sole decision. (Unpopular.)

Democrats say that these abortions must be payable by your tax dollars. (Unpopular.)

Democrats now say that there is essentially no limit on entry, continued residence, and then citizenship in America, because once a person has arrived here, if they are not found guilty of serious crime, they can stay. (Unpopular.)

Click: New York Times

Democrats are telling people who played by the rules to immigrate and become citizens that  people who jumped the lines by coming here illegally get the same benefit they waited and struggled to get. (Unpopular.)

Democrats are open to cancelling college debt, payable with the tax money of people who sacrificed to pay off their debt, or who did not attend college in order to avoid that debt. (Unpopular.)

Democrats are saying they want a rich array of public benefits (free college, free K-12 education, free child care, free health care) provided to everyone, including people here illegally. (Unpopular.)

Democrats are open to 70% marginal tax rates to pay for all those free benefits. (Unpopular.)

Democrats are saying that they distrust men in matters of harassment allegations, with a presumption of guilt against the man. (Unpopular.)


Trump is unpopular, and he is vulnerable, but these Democratic positions will tend to solidify the Trump GOP coalition of men, married women, whites, social conservatives, religious people, blue collar workers, people distrustful of government, and people resentful of economic and social elites. It will heighten resentment against woke, coastal urbanites. 

That is a big coalition and a resounding electoral majority.

There are Democrats who in fact could project a different point of view on these issues--Hickenlooper, Delaney, Bennet, Bullock, Moulton, Ryan--but there are too many of them and they are invisible under the shadow of Biden, and Biden's deep message is restoration, not forceful, proud, incremental progress. More importantly, none of Biden's moderate rivals demonstrate the presentation skills and charisma to seize the message from Biden and take it to fellow Democrats and the American people.

So there is a singular Democratic message being projected, a message of the woke, populist, progressive point of the spear. It is an exciting message with an enthusiastic base of support: the McGovern coalition.

It may not be enough. 

Trump is thrilled.

Brief Labels

"Don't be naive, Peter. Voters don't know seven things about a candidate when they vote. They know maybe four things, and one of them is factually incorrect."

                              Observation of a twenty-year Senate Chief of Staff

Showtime!

Dress rehearsal was over. For many voters, the  Democratic debates were a first introduction to the candidates. 

We have seen them in friendly interviews on late night TV, or in announcement speeches, but the debates presented them as combatants. Head to head.

We imagined seeing them standing in the Rose Garden or sitting in the Oval Office. Mostly, we saw them standing adjacent to Trump in the campaign. How would he or she match up?

This blog received several comments from readers. Here is one person's short take, a retired businessman, a Democrat, Rolls-Royce rich, liberal. He wrote this before the debate:

"Would it be Biden?  No, much too old.

Would it be Sanders? No, too far out.

Would it be Harris?  No, not enough experience.

Would it be Mayor Pete?  No, we're not ready for a gay president.

Would it be Beto? Maybe, but sounds kind of crazy.

Would it be Warren?  Pretty good but Trump would destroy her.

So, who would be the ONE?  Who could possibly stand up to Trump? "

After the debate he changed his mind: Kamala Harris looks good to him. California is the size of France and the UK, he observed. She distinguished herself.

Or this, from an Ashland Oregon attorney, writing shortly after the debate: 

"Harris plus Castro. That is the 2020 Democratic dream team. And for what it's worth, you can lay off Bernie. He already won by starting the revolution that turned the Democrats left. He is like Moses, who didn't get to the Promised Land."

A retired teacher, had these short takes:

"Biden: old worn out smile.

Harris: strong woman.

Warren: bright nerd.

Bernie: Old Commie, like my father.

Booker: enthusiastic.

Beto: Nah, he's a kid."

Trump won't be the only one to brand these candidates with a single word or two. American voters will do it, too. 

Trump will choose the most humiliating, and disqualifying label he can sell, and it will be sellable because voters will see some vulnerability and truth in the label. The label Trump may use will be ones that the Democratic candidate will need to anticipate and deflect:

Trump's list:

Crazy socialist Bernie.

Swampy demented Joe.

Slut Harris.

Pocahontas fraud Liz

Man-hater Gillibrand.

Pete the Gay Kid.

Wall Street Booker.

Open borders Beto.

De Blasio, a disaster.

Trump will label other candidates if they emerge from the scrum, but for now they are all "losers" and "nobodies."

The Debate: Live impressions

Like thirty million others, I am watching the debate.

There are two events taking place, sequentially.  

One is the live debate. 

The second is what impressions and conclusions we form after the debate, based on the influence of the commentary

Here, in the moment, are my impressions, before I hear commentary.

1. Twenty minutes into the debate, and Joe Biden surprises me with the vigor in his early responses. He seems strong, verbally adept. Not old. Not "sleepy." Eric Swalwell confronted him with a funny quotation from Biden of 3 decades prior, quoting Biden then saying it was time to pass the torch to the young. Biden smiled and said he was holding onto the torch.  It raised the age issue, and Biden said said a blunt, strong no.

2. Early on, thirty minutes into this, Bernie Sanders seemed like the guy most ready and able to take it to Trump. He seemed intense, and exactly as in-our-faces as is Trump, with Sanders calling out the insurance companies and drug companies and Trump himself, calling Trump a "liar." There are good guys and bad guys, victims and corrupt, greedy, corporations.

3. Buttigieg seems calm, descriptive.  He is describing America rather than asking us for permission to lead it. He has a journalistic tone. He spoke of religion, saying what he thought God would reject: family separation.

4. Harris qualifies herself: as the head of the second largest department of justice in the country, that of the State of California, then confronts Biden directly. You opposed business. You, Biden, were hurtful in talking about working with two overt segregationists. I, personally, she said, was a little girl on a school bus. You let Americans down, she said. She accuses him.

5. Buttigieg, asked about the police shooting in South Bend, said, "I didn't get it done." We made progress, but not enough. They were supposed to have their body cameras on, but did not. The racial makeup of the police force is not yet reflective. There was a frank admission here. He may get credit for manning up, butEric Swalwell called him on it: fire the police chief. Hickenlooper said we got racial parity done in Colorado. Buttigieg seemed mature, but the criticism was fair. He had time to fix this, and did not. This is playing out as a real error, owned up to. This could play out either way, but his opponents will keep talking about it.

6. Gillibrand says she is speaking to women, and the men who love them. Women's reproductive rights are under assault. I will never compromise on women's rights.  I have been the fiercest advocate for women's rights for over a decade. She has two messages: 1. women. 2. money in politics.

7. Marianne Williamson is not a candidate. She is promoting her self-actualization books. Go away.

Short takes and summaries of their closing statements. This is how the candidates want to be remembered.

Bennet: I can bring people together

Williamson: Love beats hate.

Swalwell: Generation, my two year old, new, generation, generation.

Hickenlooper: I have success in Colorado doing progressive change.

Gillibrand: Women in America are on fire, our rights are under attack. Women. Women.Get money out of politics.

Yang:  Solve the problems that got Trump elected. We need a trickle up economy. Put $1,000 into the hands of every American over age 18. 

Harris:  I have the ability to prosecute the case against Trump.  

Buttigieg: Politics isn't theoretical, it is real in Americans' lives. It is time for a new generation.

Sanders: Angry and intense tone as he asks how come nothing changes: Stagnate wages, student debt, income inequality. Nothing will change unless we have the guts to take on Wall street, the drug and insurance companies, and the military industrial complex.

Biden: I want to restore the soul of this nation, bring dignity. The current president embraces dictators. Give work and dignity to regular Americans. 

Immediate Aftermath: 

Media commentary begins immediately. 

Mainstream story.

MSNBC, CNN, the Washington Post, the NY Times, each have a similar take, that the highlight was Kamala Harris taking on Biden and confronting him on race. 

The conclusion was that Biden was weak, and Harris was strong, and that this is a breakout moment for Harris.

Biden's campaign has a reaction within the hour. "Harris is doing exactly what Trump wants" in criticizing Biden. 

Fox story.

Meanwhile, the take by Fox was Democratic chaos, illustrated with unflattering photos of Biden and Harris.

Reader comment sent to me within minutes of the debate end. It looked at Swalwell's comments, not Harris':

1. Local Democrat in his mid-50s writes me a text: 

     "Watching the debates tonight I was dismayed at how Biden was asked to pass the torch! My response would have been -if you want us to pass the torch, then maybe your generation should pass the ballots and not have a dismal voting record and get pissed of and go home when their favorite pick loses and not support the party. That's how we got Trump!
     Biden's generation protected Roe for half a century. Look what's happening with the give-us-the-torch generation!!
     My 2 cents."

2. Kevin Stine, Medford City Council Person, in his 30s sends a text: 

Kevin Stine

   "Swalwell is a fool."

A few minutes later he adds:

     "Think of sports. Generally, the old QB loses the starting job because he's not good or the young QB shows the potential to be the best on the team."

Then, Friday morning, with some time to reflect, Stine writes: 

     "When Donald Trump was sworn into office he became the oldest first-term President in history. If elected, Joe Biden would be 8 years older than Trump was, while Bernie would be 9 years older. That's extremely notable, and should be a topic of discussion, albeit one that has had little play thus far. There are ageism issues there, so it is difficult for an analyst to want to touch. Candidates should definitely not be bringing this up. In politics, you want to bring the dirt on your opponents, but you want your hands to be clean.

     At less than 1% in the polls, Eric Swalwell decided to dig in and referenced a Joe Biden speech from 1988 (a mere 46 years old then) talking about "the torch that has been passed". Swalwell moved the words around and said Biden should "pass the torch" to the next generation. I would say it was a dumb move on his part, but I've been there myself. 
    
     Sometimes you just try to get noticed. Swalwell looks bad doing it, but it may help every other non-Biden or Bernie candidate. It became a discussion, with Biden and Bernie both answering. Bernie later called it ageism when asked about it post-debate.
     
     Bernie and Biden are old. They would turn 80 years old in their first term. Eric Swalwell made that a discussion point that may move forward. Other candidates may be asked if 80 is too old to be President, they'll respectfully say "no", but the topic will live on. Unlike the other 1% Democratic candidates, Eric Swalwell has contributed something to the 2020 President debate. Now, hopefully, he can leave the debate stage and never return."

Jordan Cove Pipeline: Public Relations Malpractice.

The Jordan Cove Pipeline faces widespread opposition. 

They didn't give people a reason to support the Pipeline, and they ran smack into NIMBY.

No LNG

Now they are playing catch up.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission took testimony on the pipeline in Medford. Citizens spoke their opinions to court reporters. No cheering, no chants, no drama. The purpose was to gather and record public input. 

The opposition has been long established, with an opposition so broad-based and motivated that it includes both environmentalist Democrats and pro-business Republicans.  

This issue is a new pipeline that crosses rural, mostly forested Jackson County, well away from population centers. It would transport natural gas to a terminal at the Port of Coos Bay, where it would be liquified and exported. Natural gas pipelines are nothing new to southern Oregon, which is currently well serviced by natural gas. The current pipelines draw no opposition. Twelve inch pipelines were recently added and extended up arterial streets right in front of houses to service new areas, and the only complaint was the temporary traffic disruption for the installation. 

Pembina: Jackson County Fact Sheet

Those pipelines serviced us. The opposition is to having a pipeline whose purpose is primarily to serve other people. 

The pipeline operators could have seen this coming. There are always a natural and predictable set of opponents to infrastructure projects: affected adjacent landowners, people opposed to fossil fuels in general, people opposed to fracking in particular, and people generally worried about the changes or hazards of any major infrastructure project, be it a rail line, a freeway, a dam, a power line. There will always be hazards and complications to contemplate: terrorists, earthquakes, tsunamis. 

There will always be some NIMBY.

NIMBY is the shorthand for Not In My Back Yard, the widespread American behavior in which a person wants to preserve a status quo against a change to their immediate neighborhood. An example would be a person who opposes new iterations of whatever they themselves did, like the owner of a home in a new subdivision who argues to the City Council that remaining vacant lots stay vacant because wildlife desperately need the open space.

Pembina took over the pipeline project in 2017, and has been scrambling to play catch up, spreading millions of dollars on media advertising and political campaigns. They are digging themselves out of the hole of having failed to give people in southern Oregon any reason to support the pipeline. They didn't advance an offense. Meanwhile the defense did what they do: oppose. 

Landowner Bill Gow: "They lowball me."

Affected landowners complained and still complain. I met Bill Gow, a rancher landowner in southern Douglas County at an April fundraising event for US Senator Jeff Merkley, who has announced opposition to the pipeline. Gow said he was offered a negligible money by the company. He is bitter and motivated.

Meanwhile, the environmental community got engaged: The Rogue River is endangered! It uses fracked natural gas! Fracking causes methane, a greenhouse gas! Solar is better! The jobs will come and go! 

Bottom line: there was all risk, cost, inconvenience, and hazard, and nothing good to balance it.  

Now Pembina is playing catch up.

They say they settling generously with the landowners, and some 75% of them by number and 82% by miles have found agreement, per the Pembina fact sheet. 

They say they will be the single largest taxpayer in the counties the pipeline goes through, and vastly the biggest in Coos County, where the main terminal facility will be housed. The pipeline will be invisible and impose no costs on the through counties, but will pay taxes: the ideal net-positive taxpayer. All gain, no burden.

They say there will be thousands of direct and spinoff jobs.

They say natural gas is a net positive for the environment, certainly cleaner than the fuels it replaces, especially coal.

Pembina is making its case after candidates and office holders have taken a public position in opposition. Republicans say they oppose the use of eminent domain, when they hear from landowners like Gow. (Moving energy from where it is produced to where it is needed has been determined to be a "public use" under the 5th Amendment which reads: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.") It is legal, but controversial.

Democratic environmentalists say the pipeline is hazardous and this infrastructure further entrenches a climate-killing fossil fuel energy source, and it isn't environmentally clean since natural gas production releases methane. Besides, what about earthquakes? What about tsunamis? What if the pipeline leaks?

Informational

It is hard for an officeholder to do a full reversal. It looks bad, and it infuriates prior supporters. The officeholder may get and absorb new information, but the engaged, motivated, activist public has not. People get locked in.

The Medford public input event was low drama. There were visible pipeline supporters: people from the building trades unions in green tee shirts. There were pipeline opponents, mostly dressed in red.

There were people there from the BLM and Forest Service--managers of most of the land through which the proposed pipeline crosses, standing in front of maps.

The federal agency people answered questions I posed. 

Are there check valves on the pipeline, so that if there is a break for some reason that the pipe can be closed off?  Yes, 18 of them, about one every eleven miles, and they can be operated remotely.

Building trade union support

Are there already pipelines under southern Oregon streams, including the Rogue? Yes, right now, operating without incident, which is how natural gas gets to us now. Pipelines cross under waterways all the time.

Does the BLM or Forest Service have a position on whether the pipelines are a hazard or whether they support them? The answer was no surprise:  We get direction from the White House that they support energy development.

A pipe fitter in a green tee shirt told me how the pipe was constructed: 36 inches in diameter, half inch thick steel pipe, with the joints welded all around then x-rayed. Specialist welders do that work, he said.

Will the pipeline get built? 

I suspect not. 

The pipeline company got positioned as a self-interested invader and polluter, a foreign company that condemns the land of good Americans, to transport American gas to send to China so they can make a fortune, and all we get is the danger, higher gas prices, and global warning. 

No thanks!

This opposition was unnecessary. They could have spent a fraction of the dollars they are spreading around now, paid the landowners very well, and made the case that they were public benefactors with giant tax payments and no different from the pipelines that are already servicing the area. They didn't. 

It was public relations malpractice. The pipeline blew it.


[Note: the blogspot Comment section seems to be malfunctioning at this moment. People have told me they are unable to add comments, nor have I. This is a problem at the web service end. I welcome comments.] 

Trump's powerful one-two punch

We see Trump's re-election roadmap. 

It is a mix of offense and defense.

On offense, he has the issues of jobs and immigration. On defense, he is at work making sure that by election day Americans won't think the Democratic nominee is fit for office.

Offense: Check out the ad below. It is a full page color ad running today in the Miami Herald, and Nuevo Herald newspapers in Miami. Trump is stepping into the Democratic showcase: 

Latinos for Trump. Democratic identity theory was that the Latino vote would go overwhelmingly Democratic because, after all, Trump was overtly, cruelly, shamelessly insulting them. They were rapists, criminals, invaders, and unfit to be federal judges. What more does a person have to do to lose a block of votes?

Wrong. He got a third of the Latino vote. 

Latinos in America who can vote--i.e. citizens--understand that the issue of legality and process is important. His ad gets at that point: "Millions who have followed the law to come here, new immigrants should too."

NIMBY. Latino citizens act a lot like others Americans with something to lose. They want to protect what they have and resent line-jumpers. It is an immigration form of Not In My Back Yard. People with something to lose don't want to lose it. This blog has noted the NIMBY principle in earlier posts.  People who have moved into a new neighborhood made by converting vacant vacant land into a homesite, now oppose the conversion of new vacant land into houses just like theirs. Hypocritical? Yes. But commonplace. They have an investment, both financial and psychological. They want to keep what they have. Shut the doors behind yourself.

And jobs. Latinos flourish in a Trump Economy. Best economy in decades. Six million new jobs. Wage gains. Standing up to China.

Those are powerful messages. But what about the polls that show a low approval rating for Trump. That is true, but irrelevant. 

Formed in 1998

Democrats who reflect on their own attitude toward Bill Clinton in 1998 can understand how Republican and swing voters might rationalize away and dismiss the cognitive dissonance of a Trump's messy administration and their personal disapproval of him. Sure, Democrats thought, Clinton was a horn dog and an embarrassment, but he is a pretty good president and the economy is thriving, and that is what matters. His personal life was between him and Hillary. "Move on," we thought, and deal with the important things, jobs, the economy, government, not personal failings. A Democratic organization was formed with that name, and it still thrives.  Republican voters are doing the same thing now. They don't admire Trump--but he is doing a good job where it matters to them, jobs, immigration, judges.

Trump re-made the GOP brand. It is no longer about moral or fiscal rectitude nor a Goldwater-Trump opposition to the regulatory social welfare state. It is now about defending the home team, with government power used to benefit and defend the people who are here--white people most certainly, but also the Latinos who got here and are citizens--combined with opposition to people outside the team who would presume to share in this home team advantage: immigrants, foreigners, whiny people pushing racial affirmative action, reparations, gender pay equity, and socialized health care. We can't afford to share with everyone. NIMBY.

Meanwhile: the disqualification of the opponent, the second punch in the one-two.

Trump is continuing to plant seeds, implying that Biden is mentally unfit. He said to NBC's Chuck Todd:

  

Click: Note photo choice, with the drawn, vacant look.

"I think he is off. He’s different. We’ve all known him a long time. I’ve seen him for a long time. Frankly, he looks different, he sounds different, and he thinks different. Other than that, I hope he does very well."

This argument is already working. New York Times columnists are writing about it and wondering. Confirmation bias works so that people will look for and interpret ambiguous behavior in that frame. Biden stumbled and repeated a word--he must me losing it!

The meme forces Biden to work against that suggestion by moving toward telepromptered scripted speeches and Biden is boring and tiresome when he does that. His strength is his warmth, affability, and relatability. When extemporaneous speech errors are interpreted as a sign of dementia, he is in a no-win situation. Insidious, but clever gamesmanship by Trump.

Trump currently is acting like Biden is his most likely opponent, but Trump has teed up Plan B as well, an opponent from the left, Sanders or Warren or whoever is acceptable to the progressive left. Socialist, socialist, socialist. They will tax you to death and destroy American freedom. 

Can Trump win with this?  Yes. One-two, positive and negative. 

If the economy holds up.  If not, no.

Update on Cannabis in Southern Oregon

Gold Rush in Cannabis

There could be huge profits to be made this year. There better be.

Planting crew.

Southern Oregon residents are seeing something strange and new: fields that had grown forage crops--grass and alfalfa--are transformed into fields of "hemp." It is being planted openly and widely. It is everywhere.

Remember: tetrahydrocannabinol--known as THC--is the chemical that makes a person "high," a mix of euphoric, dreamy, hungry, and sleepy. It is illegal under federal law but legal in some states, including Oregon. It is grown in small batches hidden behind fences in highly regulated volumes, with plants counted out, under terms like "medical grow" and "recreational grow" and those plants are bred for high THC.  

That is different from "hemp," i.e. the CBD plant we are seeing planted.

Another breed of the cannabis plant, are selected to have little or no THC, and are treated as a farm crop. They are grown openly in volume. Those plants are bred to have high phytocannabinoil- CBD--which is used as a medicine and food additive. It has a reputation as pain reducer, an anxiety reducer, and general wonder drug. We are beginning to see it advertised as an additive in food, cosmetics, pet food, and more.

Production and investment booms can only happen in a spirt of huge optimism over an opportunity. People putting in CBD grows are getting signals that this is near the beginning of a huge wave and they want in on it.

   1. Price signals. Early adopters in the past two years made huge profits, and the word got out. Growers netted a couple hundred thousand dollars an acre for their CBD crop.

   2. Growers have direct evidence that the market is growing. They see CBD being advertised in new places, e.g. CBD infused coffee. They know the market is expanding.

   3. Growers have opportunity. People who got knowledge and experience growing a near identical plant (old style THC cannabis) can transition and scale up, from growing one acre of THC to 100 acres of CBD. The physical and knowledge infrastructure is here.

   4. Third party opinion validates the huge open end market. Market research companies predict 25% per year growth in the market. The industry has well produced newsletters and market research material, addressed to both producers and potential investors, with charts like these on the size of the market. It reads like a marketing and investment report by a brokerage firm: 

BDS Analytics Webinar

Or this one, projecting spending on various kinds of cannabis products.

BDS Analytics Webinar 

   5. Social confirmation. Growers see other growers getting aboard the bandwagon. Presumably knowledgeable, prudent people are pulling out established alfalfa to grow CBD. People are buying $150,000 tractors and planting equipment. People are buying and leasing farm land at elevated prices. People know people who making decisions--building CBD oil extractors and drying facilities--based on great future demand and high prices. There is a buzz in the air: this is big and it is just the beginning, 

The fields people see in stripes of black plastic involve thousands of dollars in sunk costs. The genetically chosen, feminized seeds may cost a dollar or more each, and there are 2,000 plants to the acre. Many of those seeds don't germinate. Some plants don't thrive and need to be replaced. The plastic is expensive and it covers single-use drip irrigation lines, also expensive. The seeds need to grow into transplant-size plants, and there are losses at each level. The land has to be purchased or leased, and there are taxes and water issues to resolve.

Growers estimate a sunk cost of $4,000 an acre, significant financial risk. If the crop can be sold for a gross revenue of $50,000 an acre--a quarter of what the early adopters got previous years--then the profits are immense. Those 25 acre fields will net the grower a million dollars. 

Maybe not.

The optimism is built on a premise that the crop will grow, that the labor will be available to harvest it, that the crop will be in salable condition, and that the sale price is high enough to cover the sunk costs, plus much, much more. That hope explains what people are seeing in the land around southern Oregon. Entrepreneurs. Capitalism. Ambition. The dream of catching the wave.

Below are photos of the planting process. First, growing seeds into transplant size plants:

The planting machine. Three people putting transplant size plants into the slot which turns to punch a hole in the plastic, then inserts the plant, then tamps down the earth around the plant, all while missing the irrigation tube that is near the plant:

Close up of the three people with their trays, dropping one plant into the hole every few seconds as the wheel turns:

Action sequence: 7 seconds of video of the planting machine and 12 seconds of how the person feeds the machine.

Click: The wheel turns and plants

Click: Feed the planter

Planted field: