Watch out, Democrats, Part One

The Coronavirus looks bad for Trump.

It could backfire on Democrats if they try to blame it on Trump.

The stock market is down, the COVID-19 virus appears to be spreading. If times are good, an incumbent president gets political credit. 

If times turn bad, shouldn't the president bear the cost?  He will, unless the Democrats screw this up, and they easily could.

Guest Post author Thad Guyer warns that it won't work to blame Trump for the spread of the virus to America. The virus originated in China, where it had infected tens of thousands of people. The virus spread has been defined in the public mind as an invasion, a spread from there to here. In that sense it mimics the immigration issue as Trump defines it: a good safe healthy America at risk from infestation from abroad, protected by isolation, by border security, by exclusion.

Democrats are poorly positioned to criticize Trump. Democrats have criticized walls and exclusions based on anything except felonious criminality, and have specifically opposed it based on ethnicity and national origin. Yet even within China itself, the isolation of Wunan from the rest of China was the mechanism used--with partial success--to stop the spread of the disease. 

Isolation and exclusion are the Trump's tools, fought every step of the way by Democrats and their friends in the courts. Democrats have the open door message.

The virus has come to America.  Democrats will bear the brunt of the blame if they make the issue its arrival in the USA. Whatever its actual mechanism for being here, if Americans start thinking of it as a matter of exclusions and border security, then Trump will look like the hero who was ahead of the curve all along. 

Guyer is an attorney specializing in representing whistleblower employees.

[A second blog post, Part Two, looks at the way Trump is already blaming Democrats from a different direction, saying Democrats had a "sickening" plan to cheer and welcome a pandemic catastrophe in order to take down Trump.]

A Guest Post by Thad Guyer


"The Trumpvirus Gambit Will Benefit Trump, not Democrats"

Trying to blame politicians for a worldwide pandemic is absurd, and Democrats who are now on the "Trumpvirus" bandwagon will themselves become targets. What did Sanders, Klobachar and Warren do to respond to the virus? What have the Governors of New York, California and Oregon done? The CDC and World Health Organization are adamant that trying to lock down national borders and stop inbound flights is not just ineffective but is perceived as racist and xenophobic. No credible Cemocrat is going to campaign that Trump should have shut out the world.

The politicization of the pandemic will backfire on Democrats as voters increasingly accept that there is nothing we can do to prevent the epidemic. Trump-- just like Democratic governors-- will be judged one and all on their effectiveness in providing medical care to the infected. So will big blue city mayors. Should Kate Brown and Gavin Newsome close the public schools as Japan just has, and if they don't and kids die will those Democrats be blamed for not having closed the schools? If they close the schools and the pandemic is not as catastrophic as feared, what price will Brown and Newsome pay by voters whose lives were turned upside down by closed schools and childcare nightmares.

Other than the Democratic candidates (whose voices are by definition the least credible of government officials), we will see few if any Democratic governors or mayors attempt any serious Trumpvirus political gambit. They know that will come back to bite them, and their safest position is that the virus is an act of God that no politician can be expected to control.

Corona virus politics is a dangerous game and politicians with survival instinct are going to steer clear of it.

Watch out, Democrats. Part Two

"For them to take a pandemic and seemingly hope it comes here and kills millions of people so they can hope to kill Donald Trump's streak of winning is a new level of sickness."             Donald Trump, Junior The Trump formula: Deny. Then accuse. Trump reverses course on the virus. Now it is big deal. When times are good, incumbent Presidents tend to get the credit. Trump went out on a limb and said the high stock market was due to him and that the virus in China was no big deal. It was really just a typical cold or flu. It put him at risk. The stock market and the spread of the virus are largely not in his control. He can say things are great, but reality intervenes. The virus spread. The stock market noticed. There is huge potential for disruption of supply chains, travel, and commerce generally. Assemblies are being cancelled. Businesses are cutting back and announcing reduced earnings expectations. It could trigger a recession. Denial. It's a Democratic hoax. Trump's first response was denial. He was reported to be furious at Nancy Messonnier, the Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. She expected it to begin spreading in the US and that the potential for "disruption to everyday life may be severe." Trump and his communication allies said it was all just media hype. Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said the virus was a media invention. "The press was covering their hoax of the day because they thought it would bring down the president. . . . That's what this is all about." “It’s going to disappear,” Trump said. "One day it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.” Trump now directed that all public comments regarding the virus be coordinated by the office of Mike Pence, with the work done by Pence's Press Secretary Katie Waldman, the new wife of senior White House aide Stephen Miller. No more spontaneous comments from career officials. Course change. Attack and Accuse. Don Junior is making that case, accusing Democrats of actively cheering and welcoming the death of millions. Donald Junior's comments caused a predictable uproar. A Democratic congressman John Garamendi from California took the bait and said "Don Junior better not get close to me" which serves to republish and amplify the charge. Oh, boy, a fight!! A Trump campaign spokesperson echos that story on Laura Ingraham's show on Fox. "Of course you are seeing this outrageous demagoguery from the left. It's what they do. They are infected with 'Trump Derangement Syndrome Virus'.  I thought I'd never see the day the left including the media was cheering for a disease to take over America." CNBC story That is a question and focus that serves Trump: are Democrats actuallyunhappy that millions of Americans die, or only pretending to be unhappy.  Are they cheering or only celebrating? Make Democrats the subject. Facts on the ground. The virus appears to be spreading. Between 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time and 8:40 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday night Fox News updated its landing page. Earlier visitors landed on a page showing Ingraham scoffing at the media fears of a spread, with a tiny story about that single case in California. They updated it with word of a second case. Oh. By this morning Fox has accommodated to the new reality with a landing page describing an "abundance of caution." The disease isn't a hoax after all. Meanwhile business news sites describe both a growing crisis. The two different approaches to the events of the week are evident here. CNBC describes (CNBC) describes a stock market crisis amid a possible pandemic. Worry. Meanwhile, at Fox Business, Trump acknowledges and engages the problem, picturing a heroic Trump fighting the virus with fists raised, "prepared for the very worst." Resolve. Either way, Trump has his media narrative in place. Those Democrats will do anything to take Trump down, but Trump is ready to confront the enemy, those Democrats.

The Dow! The Virus!

These could get a Democrat elected.

A recession, a war, or a pandemic will ruin the Trump argument that, sure, he is an uncouth, obnoxious, divisive bully, but America is prosperous, safe, and healthy, so re-elect him.

Record Dow point drop.

Trump set himself up for disaster by seizing political responsibility for the economic recovery that was underway.

Trump made the classic rookie mistake. Live by the market, die by the market. Veteran financial advisors warn rookies not to confuse a bull market for brains. Trump was incautious, so of course he took credit.

The market is up! See how good I am at being president!

At the risk of irritating anti-Trump readers, let me describe a simple truth. Trump didn't deserve much credit for the market going up, but he deserves some credit.

Trump successfully jawboned the Fed into continuing a very easy credit regimen which has the effect of inflating assets and encouraging cheaper and therefore easier borrowing. People and businesses whose assets are worth more feel richer and spend more (the "wealth effect"). Higher asset values mean collateral used for bank loans is worth more, so banks can lend more. Plus low interest rates mean people are encouraged to borrow more and can afford to do it because interest charges are lower. Plus, he cut taxes on businesses and the wealthy, and the wealthy are the "investor class" so they had more money to invest. Plus, he cut regulations on businesses so the costs of dealing with the externalities (the consequences to others) were lower, which may well hurt the people who breathe dirtier air, but in the meantime means easier going for polluters. Beyond that, he jawboned that the economy was really, truly wonderful and business, and people do respond to cheerleading.

Bottom line, it may all be a dangerous sugar high, with terrible postponed consequences, and morally unjust in the tax cuts for the wealthiest instead of the middle class, and unfair to future generations, but for now assets are up, unemployment is down, business and consumer confidence are high. The people who will pay for all this are young people who don't bother to vote and kids who haven't been born yet. Trump isn't thinking of them. He is thinking of the electoral college.

Strong economies get presidents re-elected. 

The Hill: Amateurs in charge

There were warning signs of trouble. The inverted yield curve signal--short term rates higher than longer term rates--was once again flashing "Alarm! Recession ahead." Investors ignored the signal.

Then the coronavirus, with its disruption to supply chains and its potential to disrupt the world economy, plus panicky talk on on the news shows. Breaking News Alert: you might get the disease and die.

The stock market just fell 10%, with the largest point drop in history yesterday. CNBC is running headlines warning that  things will get worse for investors. Trump had a weird press conference in which he rambled and said everything was under control, and then he introduced CDC experts who said everything was not under control.

For the past two weeks Trump did exactly what the Chinese leaders did: suppress the news, assure everyone things were under control, and condemn the people who accurately described the problem, calling them "troublemakers." It blew up on the Chinese government. The "troublemaker" died of the virus.

Rush Limbaugh and the conservative press say this is all an overwrought media hoax, that the virus is just the typical annual winter flu. That was the Trump line.

Trump made the same mistake twice. He associated himself with a future outcome not under his control, a good stock market and a happy outcome on the virus. That sets him up for potential failure.

Warning to Democrats:  Don't make the same mistake. Don't climb on a bandwagon of doom, and don't appear like you welcome the bad news. Bad news is bad news. People die from the flu. People lose their jobs in recessions.

Moreover, Trump may well just be lucky enough that the stock market reverses and the coronavirus is either contained or turns out to be no big deal.

Friday morning update. The hits keep coming.

Regarding the virus, simply attach blame to Trump. Trump in fact bears some responsibility here for the sluggish response to the COVID-19 virus. Trump had not been concerned about pandemics and his budget proposal was for a 13% cut in emerging and zoonotic infectious diseases, and he had already cut the disease oversight staff at the National Security Council and the Department of Homeland Security.

There is no upside for Trump, unless Democrats overplay their hand and predict catastrophe. Then anything less than catastrophe is a victory for Trump.

There is no need for Democrats to predict doom to make Trump look bad. The media is doing it for them. Let it play out.

Bloomberg says Trump is a fool

Is Trump an incompetent, narcissistic idiot? If so, Bloomberg is the remedy.

But Democrats may well think incompetence isn't really the worst thing about Trump. The worst thing is that he is a dangerous enemy who holds them in contempt.

When an incumbent president is running for re-election, voters make a decision either to continue for more of the same, or to reverse course. Typically voters give a political party eight years in the cycle, not four. Then they vote in a candidate who represents a course correction of some characteristic voters sense as a problem.

Quick history: JFK offered a young, vigorous image to counter the old, stogy, too-comfortable Eisenhower. Jimmy Carter offered pious righteousness to counter Watergate-stained Nixon-Ford. Reagan was the optimistic morning-in-America to Carter's twilight malaise.

Democrats may have generally been happy with Obama's cultured graciousness, but on the right Obama was perceived as too empathetic, too nice, and therefore, too weak. Romney discerned that and initiated his campaign with a book titled No Apology. Romney didn't yet succeed. It was only four years of Obama, not eight, plus Obama bailed out the auto industry and the Upper Midwest remembered.

Democrats were caught flat footed in 2016. Generally they liked Obama's mild eloquence, his internationalism, and his sensitivity to racial injustice and misogyny, so they underestimated the appeal of brash, pugilistic, anti-cultured, anti-PC nationalism. They heard it from Rush Limbaugh and thought it was fringe; Trump understand it was the new mainstream for Republicans.

Trump was the "remedy" for Obama. No more Mr. Nice Guy.

There is a majority coalition ready to replace Trump.  What remedy is needed?

Oligarchy and corporate power. Bernie Sanders understands Trump to represent entrenched wealth and oligarchy relentlessly on the attack against working people. Sanders says Trump uses the time-honored method of aristocracies, dividing working people against each other, using race or ethnicity, so that working people fight each other, not at the billionaires, their real oppressors. Sanders is the remedy for that.

Culture Warrior. Trump also represents the heightened war against identity groups associated with the left: liberals, climate activists, people of color, women, academics. He scoffs at them. He calls them names.  He proudly works to erase anything-Obama, including the ACA. He appeals to people who dislike Democrats and are proud of it. "Make liberals cry again," is a familiar meme in Trump world.

All of the Democratic nominees perceive this as a key problem and themselves the remedy. Sanders, too, but he is an outlier because he doesn't just  play defense. Sanders relentlessly plays offense, with his positive agenda of change, which some people like, some dislike.

Incompetence. Bloomberg is another outlier. His remedy for Trump is an appeal to competent non-partisan management, not protection of the left's tribe.  Bloomberg presents himself as the matter of fact businessman who knows how to solve problems. Bloomberg's appeal is that he will implement some of the left's policy goals. The fact that he gave money to Lindsay Graham in the past, then to Democratic candidates for Congress in 2018, doesn't hurt his non-partisan competency case, only the tribal loyalty case, and that isn't what he sells. He comes in from the wings,a hero CEO to save an ill-led country, when the current stable of potential replacements (Biden, Sanders, etc.) aren't up to the job.

Will it work?

Democrats do consider Trump to be dangerously incompetent. The news media and tell-all books all cite key elements of the Trump presidency: unread briefings, vacant offices, the people serving in an "Acting" roles, the presence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, the revolving doors, the loyalty purges, silly tweets. Just yesterday there is a new revelation, about a college senior heading Trump's appointment office, charged with culling actual experts in federal jobs in order to make room for loyalists.

Bloomberg has a case to make, but it may not be the case Democrats want to hear. Democrats' feelings are hurt by Trumps insults, and many want a defender, not a manager. Moreover, the Sanders critique made wealth a disqualification, while Bloomberg says it is proof of competence. Bloomberg says our president is a fool, but Sanders says he is a malevolent  and skilled villain, systematically oppressing American workers.

Bloomberg's campaign: The competency argument

Bloomberg cannot avoid the reality that he is yet another oligarch exercising power. However, Bloomberg has the money to make his case that the key issue is Trump incompetence.

That is his shot.

CBS Lost the Debate

Democrats lost, too.

There was a dual message, and both were bad: CBS is incompetent. Democrats are in disarray.

Where are Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite when we need them? 

This is the time in the process when things are jelling. A new leader emerges from chaos, and voters, activists, and elected Democrats begin adjusting to the new political alignment. Arguably, that is where we are now. Bernie Sanders has a pathway to the nomination. The opposition to Sanders is splintered and the 15% threshold to get any delegates means that some of those votes for Buttigieg, Steyer, Biden, and Klobuchar will be assigned to Sanders. Sanders may have this wrapped up by evening on Super Tuesday.

This is a fork in the road for Democrats. Sanders isn't just a new leader. He is a new alignment of message, voters, and campaign funding. He does not represent a continuation and evolution of the current Democratic Party. He is a rejection of it. 

The reality of that break from the old is muddled by the fact that Sanders' policy goals are largely similar to those of the Clinton-Obama-Pelosi party, and Sanders preserves the parties' positions in the great culture war. The Democratic Party remains the more urban, more secular, more feminist party, and the one more responsive to the frustrations of people of color. Sanders differs from the old party in his message on the causes and solutions for income inequality, which means he attracts a different base constituency, and relies on a different donor base. That changes everything.

In Sanders' view, the old Democratic Party worked with corporate America and accepted its values and policies along with its campaign money, and that was a betrayal of working people. Democrats became simply a kinder, gentler, hypocritical version of the GOP on the key issues of jobs, trade, income distribution, and war. Both parties, he argues, are captured by powerful corporate interests, operating through their influence on campaign funding. Sanders rejects that. He is openly hostile to corporations and billionaires. The very rich are not allies; they are enemies.

Tuesday night's debate had the potential to be the watershed showdown between the new and old. Sanders would get hit from all sides and he would defend his positions. It could have been the trial by fire of Sanders's vision.

The opportunity was lost.

CBS validated everything snarky and critical that people have said about corporate media. They announced time limits on talk but made little attempt to enforce them, so candidates quickly learned to ignore them. The moderators asked questions designed to pick at political vulnerabilities rather than policy, and nobody had a chance to explain anything in any detail. If their goal was to create a chaotic food fight, they succeeded. At one point Sanders and Buttigieg simultaneously spoke for an entire minute, audio live on both microphones, appearing on split screen.

It turned into a mix of professional wrestling and Jerry Springer, dealing with minor points and resentments. Did people know Bloomberg had donated to Lindsay Graham, what did Sanders mean when he praised Cuban education, how did that differ from what Obama said, was Putin helping Sanders and why, who gets credit for what legislation, whether a D- score from the NRA is low enough.

It was all pretty silly.

The classic case of missed opportunity was when Elizabeth Warren, who potentially could represent a bridge across the Democratic chasm, used her time to attack Bloomberg, then persisted with it, questioning Bloomberg's jokes found inappropriate by three female employees, and his apology. He said he agreed, that he released the women from the non-disclosures, and that he ended at his firm the non-disclosure policies common on Wall Street. "Yes" was not good enough for Warren. Having heard agreement, instead of moving on to take credit for progress, incredibly, she turned back to more attacks on the same subject. She transported herself from a presidential candidate into the archetype never-satisfied scold, which is what people say when pressed to explain what they mean by "there is something about her I don't like." There it is. That is what they don't like.

The debate was a lost opportunity for Sanders and for Democrats. It failed to test whether Sanders could defend--and sell-- the new vision for the Democratic Party. He is proposing that Democrats make war against current allies of the party--"good" businesses, wealthy people, people tired of all the political upset, and the suburban voters that voted in the new House majority--without demonstrating he can sell a robust message that will unify Democrats and will replace those voters with the frustrated working class. He has convinced Democrats he can shun the moderates; can he convince them he can pull together a winning coalition? He didn't get a chance last night.

The debate also failed to identify a single, plausible alternative candidate to Sanders. All of them are sort of plausible and sort of flawed.

Bloomberg was positioned at the end and looked like he did last debate: imperious, cold, technocratic, competent, and prepared to step into the middle, brush aside all this participatory democracy time wasting, and win things the old fashioned way, with the mother's milk of politics, money.  That remains plan B. What we don't know yet if Plan A--Sanders--can sell his message to the sixty or seventy percent of Democrats who like someone else better than him.

And who are tired of all the drama.

Can Bernie Win?

17,000 hear Sanders in Tacoma

First thing for Democrats: Stop all the negativity.

"Oh my God, it's going to be Bernie. We're totally screwed." We read and see Democrats saying this everywhere that people interested in politics go. 

It's on Fox, of course, but also in the places Democrats find credible. MSNBC, CNN, PBS, the NY Times, the Washington Post.

Cable news has a revolving door of hosts reporting on two related stories. One is that Bernie Sanders cannot win because he is too extreme. Socialism polls worse than being black, a woman, gay, or an atheist. They worry Bernie Sanders is going to be our version of Jeremy Corbyn, the too-far-left leader of the Labor Party in Britain, who lost badly to Britain's Trumpish Boris Johnson. 

Huffington Post Landing Page 

James Carville says it on CNN, and Chris Matthews says it on MSNBC. The Never-Trump conservatives--Charlie Sykes and Bill Kristol--are moaning that anyone could beat Trump as long as they weren't leftist loonies, and yet, they are going with Bernie.

Another McGovern blowout, here we come.

The other big message is that Democrats are at work to stop Bernie at any cost, above board or below it, either alone or in a coordinated secret conspiracy organized by the DNC..

The two messages together create a message of defeat. They tell a story that Bernie Sanders cannot win because he is flawed on his own and because even his potential friends (i.e. Democrats) are against him. It fuels a circle-the-wagons attitude within the Bernie ranks ("Go f--- yourself, boomer.") which impedes coalition building. It destroys hope. If you think you can't, you can't.

Political momentum for change builds on the emotion of hope, the idea that something big is happening and change is not just possible but happening right now, so get aboard the Blue Wave. It is why political oratory matters, when spoken to a large live audience.  Humans are energized by the energy and enthusiasm of others. Yes We Can. Hope and Change. I have a dream. Friends, Romans, Countrymen.

If you think you can, you can.

Michael Bloomberg will change from a nuisance into a political leader when he gives speeches in packed basketball arenas, and people are chanting "Bloomberg. Bloomberg." The people at Sanders' crowds are shouting "Bernie!." The problem is that a lot of Democrats are outside the arena talking doom.

                                  ---

Political observer Thad Guyer says that what we have now is a Democratic buzz-kill message. Guyer is an attorney with an international practice defending whistleblowing employees. He does his work wherever his laptop computer is, currently most often from his perch in Vietnam.

Guest Post by Thad Guyer

"The Self-fulfilling Prophecy of Bernie Can't Win"

       People listen to their leaders especially in times of crisis. Donald Trump is considered a crisis, and the leaders within the Democratic Party who have our ear are Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg and a wide array of media elites and elected officials. 

       Here is the message they are drilling into us: "Bernie Sanders cannot beat Donald Trump". When voters believe that casting their vote is futile or even self-defeating, they don't vote. When primary candidates and party officials say "I will vote for whoever the nominee is but Bernie can't win",  voters hear that putting up with the hassle and long lines on election day is a waste of time. 

       Political junkies like the readers of this blog and I will vote as a matter of principle. But "party faithful" status is held by only an estimated 40% of registered Democrats and democratic leaning independents. If even 25% of Democratic voters take this message to heart, there is no way Trump will be defeated by Bernie Sanders. If Bernie Sanders is denied the nomination and 25% of his supporters don't vote, or vote for Trump like they did the last time, Trump is guaranteed reelection.

       If Trump wins as historical precedent says he almost surely will since similarly situated mid term presidents have always won for about the last 100 years, then this self defeating prophecy will rank high in our root cause analysis. If our leaders cannot stop this defeatism under our own tent, they should be held held to account in the aftermath. Or is a democratic tent itself an illusion?

A watched recession never comes

A financial collapse helped elect FDR in 1932. Another one elected Obama in 2008.

The pattern is easy to discern. If Republicans are in the White House and the economy implodes, America will vote for a Democrat.

Consumer confidence: looking up this year

Will Bernie get the crisis he needs?  


The stock market is down 3% as I write this morning. Is this the beginning of the end of the good times? Probably not.

The economy, by most measures, is pretty strong. Most people are better off today than they were four years ago. Donald Trump says the strong economy belongs to him, not Barrack Obama.

Obama let him get away with this narrative. It was a glass half full/glass half empty problem for Obama. The economy was much, much better by 2016 than it was when Obama was inaugurated, and unemployment had fallen to about 4.2%, objectively low and going lower. However, the recovery was spotty. The coastal cities had recovered, but the country's midsection and their traditional manufacturing industries had not. It didn't seem politically right to call it great, not with the recovery incomplete, so Obama didn't. Democrats did not have an effective counter to Trump's message that the economy was an utter disaster, "carnage."

Consumer Confidence, Ten year uptrend

Then Trump, the better salesman, two months into his presidency, called the economy great, the greatest ever, and all due to him.

He said it like he believed it, and he sold it, and not just to Republican but to businesses and consumers in general. He was a cheerleader with a message: the economy is great!!!

Democrats can like it or not, believe it accurate or not, but for better or worse, this is Trump's economy in the public's mind and Trump has people generally thinking it is good.

How do we know? Polls show it, and more importantly, consumers are still borrowing and spending. They may regret the borrowing and spending later, but that is what is happening, and consumers are carrying the economy on their back. Moreover, investors are still investing, buying risk assets, searching for yield in an economic environment where asset prices are high and returns are low. High asset prices make people with assets feel rich, so they spend.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is talking misery. He observes that half of Americans are one emergency away from financial ruin, young people are drowning in student debt, homes are unaffordable, health care costs are crazy high and millions are uninsured, people are living on the streets, and capitalism is making the richest richer and nearly everyone else no better off, and maybe worse. He is right; there are people who are missing out on the prosperity, a half empty glass.

The economy recently set some records. The SP500 was at an all time high. Unemployment is at an all time low. Interest rates on 30 year treasuries set an all time low record of 1.89%. Three records.

Critics say that the economy only looks good, on an average, but that disguises the effect on everyday Americans. On the average Michael Bloomberg and a homeless vagrant have $30 billion each.

Critics say the economy is held aloft on a sugar high of crazy-low yields, made possible by crazy-aggressive central bank policy that is being carried out for the benefit of Trump's political interest, not sound economics. Whatever. The numbers are good.

An eleven year bull market. 

Other critics say it is held aloft by crazy-large federal budget deficits. They say It is madness to run a huge deficit at a time of full employment and a strong economy. If we cannot live within our means now, when will we ever? Once again, consumers say "whatever," and keep spending.

The budget hawks, those Republicans who preached living within the government's means, only meant it when a Democrat was in office. Now deficits don't matter. It was just a ploy to stymie Obama. Democratic hearts were never really into austerity, so now neither party wants to put away the sugar.

Eventually debts will be paid or they will be written off. Either way someone pays a price. Someday there will be a crisis, but it does not look like one today. Not in time for the election.

Timing is everything. Sanders may be twelve years too late, or one year too early, but Democrats who are considering this election and the message that will resonate need to reconcile themselves to the fact that this is not an ideal time to sell economic redistribution to alleviate the pain of an unjust, rigged economic system. Not when there are help wanted signs everywhere.

Moderate Democrats can relax

Bernie Sanders is on track to be the Democratic nominee.

It's OK.

President Sanders would be lucky to make any change at all. Vote blue.

Sanders appears to have eliminated Warren as a rival. That is huge. Neither Biden, nor Buttigieg, nor Klobuchar emerged as a survivor, which is also huge.

This leaves Bloomberg between Sanders and the nomination. Bloomberg revealed himself to be so unprepared to be a retail politician that it will be near-impossible for him to define himself as a person who represents a popular groundswell of support. 

A path leads to Sanders getting the nomination even without getting  majority of the votes. Sanders and his supporters defined 2016 as a case of him being unjustly robbed by the DNC. There is another potential interpretation, that the 2016 nomination had a predictable, reasonable result, given that the candidate who served a lifetime as a Democrat (Hillary) got the most votes, and in a close contest was the preferred candidate over a candidate (Bernie) who insisted he wasn't a Democrat. 

But the "robbed" story is powerful and persistent, so unless some other candidate clearly surpasses Sanders, then Sanders will likely need to get the nomination. A non-Sanders unity candidate will be tainted by the 2016 history. It would be better for the Democratic establishment to let Sanders have the nomination than to deny Sanders the nomination and create a permanent divide in the Party, the progressive Sanders/AOC left versus the moderates. Denying Sanders could create a permanent third party. AOC said it aloud, that in any other country than the USA, she and Biden would be in rival parties, not the same one.

Sanders would have defeated Bloomberg by successfully defining the election as a showdown between people and plutocrats. An affable, charismatic Bloomberg might have won that fight, but not the charmless, cold Bloomberg we saw on stage. 

So, given that history, what would Sanders' general election narrative be?  Sanders would argue that it comes down to change versus a dysfunctional status quo. The medical care situation is indefensibly expensive, college is unaffordable, income disparity is at the highest since the Gilded Age. His argument is that any system that creates so many billionaires, simultaneously with so many people struggling, is clearly wrong. His win over Bloomberg would be proof the people can win in a fight against plutocracy.

Said simply, Sanders represents change, and a new New Deal.

What would Trump's narrative be? He is already saying it, that Bernie Sanders is a dangerous socialist, with kooky ideas on prison voting, on Soviet honeymoons, on free stuff for illegal immigrants, on taking over all health care choices, on raising taxes on everyone including anybody with a job, on abandoning Israel, on hating Christians and the flag and traditional America, and destroying the economy that is working so well.

Said simply: Trump represents continued prosperity vs. Socialist poverty and liberal excess.

The test for Sanders is just how discontented Americans are. Maybe young people and people in poverty will--at long last--turn out to vote. History suggest people who need economic revolution don't bother to vote it in. This time might be different. 

Much more reliable voters are people in middle class suburbs that shifted from Trump back to moderate Democrats in 2018. Their vote for the Democratic legislator was a vote for normal-ness, not change.  Sanders' message of revolution and change will seem off base and risky. Democratic-oriented pundits are worried sick that Sanders will turn off those moderates voters, comfortable people, people with jobs, people with health care, people who dislike Trump but who are not looking for revolution.

No need to worry.

There is a pathway to victory. It rests in the realization that Sanders comes across as a big talking visionary, not a can-do legislative genius. (Can do is the Bloomberg theme, not Sanders')  Medicare for All doesn't even have majority of support by Democrats, much less a majority in either House or Senate. Sanders' programs will be understood to be like Trump and his Wall that Mexico will pay for, or the health plan Trump promised would provide much better coverage, be universal, and be much cheaper than the ACA. Big, grand talk. Something to shout about at rallies, but not real.

Sanders might get a boost from the young and excited who think big change will happen. They will dream and hope. The reality of inertia will not be apparent until after the inauguration. 

Moderate Democrats and never-Trumpers need not worry about Sanders. By election day sophisticated strategic voters will understand the score. They can vote in the full confidence that Sanders will be able to get precious little done, less perhaps than even moderates want done. The House and Senate are still in the hands of plutocrats and special interests, and lots of Republicans.There is inertia. We are no more likely to have Medicare for All than we were to have Mexico pay for a wall or Trump's great, universal, inexpensive health care program.

Moderates can relax, and vote blue. 

I made some people angry

Judge Greif wrote a litigant: 

     "I also wanted to kill Crain today at CFC graduation. But I was worried about all the witnesses if I just ran and body slammed her."

      Greif: May 16, 2017 4:59 p.m.

Yesterday this blog wrote an update to the Greif story.  

I learned I have made some very prominent people very angry.

Judge Greif is running for re-election. Her campaign began showing activity this week, having posted a $50 contribution. She has an opponent, Joe Charter. The fact that an active campaign is beginning seemed to me to be blog-post-worthy, especially in light of the fact that judge races tend not to get significant local coverage in the media. 

The text messages are documents. They are facts. I consider them on their face to be strong evidence of a lack of judicial temperament and behavior. But this blog discusses messages, both intended and unintended, and that means that nothing, and certainly no document, is understood on its face.

Everything needs interpretation.

Some very prominent people, including an elected official, tell me I am dead wrong, and defend Judge Greif. Here are the arguments that have come my way so far:

1. The texts were supposed to be secret. The argument is that the text messages were never expected to become public. They were the unguarded private communication to a friend. If I hadn't published them, no one would have known about them. She shouldn't be blamed for something we weren't supposed to know about.

2. Judge Greif was provoked by Judge Crain and former OnTrack agency head Rita Sullivan. I should have realized that the primary targets of Judge Greif's texts--"those bitches" as Greif described them--were difficult people on their own. We should interpret Greif's texts in that context. Judge Greif was driven to these outbursts by their targets. 

3. Blame and worry the messenger.  People tell me I was unfair to Judge Greif, that I should have let this drop, and that I making trouble for my wife, an attorney and the Executive Director of the local nonprofit legal services organization. I should be aware that people unhappy with me and fans of Judge Greif are taking it out on my wife's organization and therefore her clients. Shame on me. I am told that my disclaimer at the bottom, saying my blog is my own work, is ignored. 

4. Judge Greif is no worse than Judge Crain. This is not the same as the argument that Judge Greif was provoked into acting out; rather it is that Judge Greif is being graded more harshly than Judge Crain, who I should realize was not a perfect colleague either. So what about Judge Crain, why am I picking on Judge Grief?

5. Look at Joe Charter instead. Maybe instead of looking at Judge Greif and her texts, I should be seeing if Joe Carter has done anything wrong.  Why not him? He lives in Ashland, sure, there's that, but don't you know he was seen at a Republican dinner?

All of these are good political arguments on behalf of Judge Greif. They change the focus from her to a fellow Judge, to Rita Sullivan, to me, to my wife, to Joe Charter. This is smart. They change the subject from Judge Greif.  Distraction works in politics.

I invite Judge Greif and her friends to make these arguments, and others, which I will publish as guest posts.

My position is a simple one: 

1. I think the text messages are vicious and wacko and beyond intemperate and injudicious. She wrote them. She is stuck with them.

2. I am uncomfortable with her own descriptions of how she helped a litigant with a case, how she used her "moles" in the media to trash OnTrack to try to get a richer settlement offer for the litigant, and the way she undermined a colleague on the bench.  

3. We have elections so we an decide who we want in office. Judge Greif's term is up, so I figure we might look at her and her record--including her texts--and see if we are happy, or if we think we can do better.


[Note. Once again let me note that my wife is an attorney but I write this blog on my own, with no input whatever from her. Nobody but me decides what goes in this blog. My wife doesn't even read it. She is busy with her own work.]

Judge Lisa Greif vs. Judge Joe Charter

The campaign for Judge Greif's re-election begins. 

Today, a close look at Orestar, the Oregon system for observing campaign contributions and expenditures.

Usually sitting judges in the state court system are re-elected without opposition.  Not this time.

Shocking text messages Judge Greif wrote to a local litigant were revealed in the routine "discovery" process.

The texts revealed both intemperate animus against a fellow judge and active involvement in the legal and media strategy of a litigant with an active case against a defendant. The defendant was a nonprofit agency that provided services to her own local court.

The texts' profanity added to their startling effect. 

Attorneys who contacted this blog noted that the litigant Greif aided appeared regularly in front of the court's judges, including both Judge Greif and the fellow judge that Greif referred to as a "bitch" and a "witch." Greif wrote that she wished to "body slam" the fellow judge.

Attorneys told me comments of that kind undermine the respect that is an essential element of a court's legitimacy. Moreover, her texts revealed that she gave active support and counsel to this litigant in both her legal and media strategy, revealing her purpose of extracting a better settlement offer from the defendant to stop the drumbeat of stories in local media. These actions were inconsistent with the need for court officers to be, and appear to be, impartial, they said.

Who said? Lots of people.

Judges are dangerous to annoy, especially if one is an attorney.

Just because a judge does something shocking and inappropriate does not mean he or she will be opposed for re-election. Lawyers with business before a court don't want to stir up trouble for themselves or their clients by criticizing a judge or running against them. Attorneys who contacted this blog asked to remain anonymous. They said her comments were indefensible, but let someone else speak up.

The Oregon Orestar system is transparent. Campaign contributions and expenditures are required to be  posted promptly. Anyone can go to Orestar and see who has an active campaign, evidenced by who is raising and spending money. Here is a link:

https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/gotoPublicTransactionSearchResults.do

In the box that says Filer/Committee type in Greif.  Or Charter. Then push the gray "Search" button in the upper right. 

Normally, the risk to an attorney would be to have ones name associated with a challenger. In this cycle, the polarity may be reversed. The problem is not that Charter is a Judge of the Justice Court. Few attorneys appear before a court that deals primarily with traffic issues. The risk is that an attorney who openly endorses or contributes to Greif may appear to be acknowledging that Greif's behavior was acceptable, "good enough" for local courts. I have not yet encountered any attorney who openly says that Judge Greif was right, that she showed judicial temperament, that she has the composure expected of a judge, that she brought dignity to the court, or that her behavior undermining a fellow judge and giving assistance to a litigant was perfectly fine.

Some may emerge. 

But in any case, all contributors above $100 for every candidate will be right there available for any citizen to observe. So far, no names have appeared on Orestar for her. Greif has raised a total of $50, an amount under the threshold of giving names. She has raised and spent essentially no money beyond what appears to be cleanup from her prior uncontested campaign. 

Joe Charter appears to have an active campaign. He loaned his committee $40,000 in seed money and then another $10,000. He is spending money on what appears to be professional help to have an internet presence and other campaign materials. He has begun raising money from Mary Cody, Carol Voisin, and from local attorney Damian Idiart. Charter's campaign appears to be up and running.

Out of state readers tell me they have little interest in my description of local races like this, but let me relate this to a bigger issue. Courts do not have armies. Their power rests entirely on their legitimacy and the respect they have. Executives who command police forces and militaries, or legislatures which have the power of the purse, have mechanisms for asserting their will. The courts have only the power of belief, that when they assert something is fair and right, people will accept it, even if it is against their interest. People need to believe the court system and its judges are reasonable, fair, unbiased people, or else the system collapses.

Reputation matters because legitimacy matters.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson is in the news today having just decided that Roger Stone should go to prison for 40 months. It was news, because the political branches of the government were weighing in on what she should do. She wrote that the case before her "exemplifies why it is that this system, for good reason, demands that the responsibility falls to someone neutral."

In the future this blog will review the actual text messages that led to Presiding Judge Gerking saying he was "certainly disappointed" and that the "thoughts expressed in the texts are inappropriate and fall short of what we expect from a judge." But the subject of this post is the campaign and why it matters.

The office is an important one, and this campaign should enjoy the same transparency as legislative and county commission races. A campaign has begun. As of this moment, Joe Charter has a real campaign. Lisa Greif does not.

                                                                            --------

Here are links to two blog posts that give the background on this story:  

                

A sample of her texts are available here:  Click Greif: "I also wanted to kill Crain today. . . "

Greif's and Gerking's verbatim responses are here: Click. Gerking: "Certainly disappointed."


Note: i am married to an attorney. No one but me decides what goes into this blog, most certainly not my wife. She doesn't even read my blog.

Sanders won

     

Pete Buttigieg was half right.

     "We could wake up two weeks from today, the day after Super Tuesday, and the only candidates left standing will be Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg, the two most polarizing figures on this stage. And most Americans don't see where they fit in if they've got to choose between a socialist who thinks that capitalism is the root of all evil, and a billionaire who thinks that money ought to be the root of all power."

     Pete Buttigieg, last night's debate

He was wrong in his descriptions of Sanders and Bloomberg, but right in saying they will be the two left standing.

Sanders doesn't really think capitalism is the root of all evil. Buttigieg was unfair to him. Some of Sanders' supporters argue that proposition, but Sanders does not. He wants to control capitalism and divide its rewards differently, toward more equal ends, but does not think it evil per se, nor does he want to destroy it.

 And Bloomberg doesn't really think money ought to be the root of all power. Bloomberg respects democratic traditions and power. He uses money to influence democratic institutions within laws established by democratic processes, which processes are influenced by money, yes, but money is just a tool to influence the real root of power, which still rests with the people.

Pete Buttigieg is correct saying they are polarizing figures. He gave Americans a preview of how each of those two figures can be described--caricatured--by their detractors. Both Sanders and Bloomberg are clear about who they are,  Sanders the uncompromising progressive Democratic Socialist, Bloomberg the fabulously wealthy capitalist with a socially liberal agenda. They don't try to be acceptable to everyone, and they aren't.

Sanders won the night. Warren won it for him. 

Sanders won because he will almost certainly be on the stage in two weeks as predicted, as will a damaged Bloomberg, whose momentum was interrupted.  Warren focused her attacks on Bloomberg, not Sanders, in a very strong showing. She was fierce. The net result will be to elevate her and keep her in the race. It will be for naught. Unless a health event removes Sanders from the field, Sanders, not Warren, will carry the progressive flag. Sanders' support is secure. He has his faction. He earned it and has kept it.

Warren's extraordinary night reveals that the alternatives to Sanders are not head and shoulders above each other, with the result that Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Warren will all go into Super Tuesday splitting the vote. Everyone looked good. Klobuchar was convincing in saying she was electable, Buttigieg spoke eloquently, Biden looked fully competent, Warren looked tough. No one lost except Bloomberg, and Bloomberg losing does not matter. He is invincible. He earns money faster than he is spending it, even now.

The debate confirms that Democrats are doing in 2020 what Republicans did in 2016, nominate the factional candidate with the disruptive message. Trump had a right nationalist message that appealed to 30% of Republicans. There were multiple alternatives who split the vote among them. The voters were offered a buffet, not a single choice.  Then, with the nomination won, Trump consolidated support.

Given last night’s performance, Warren will now stay in, as will Biden, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg. The buffet wins it for Sanders.

The irony is that if Bloomberg weren't in the race, Buttigieg or Klobuchar might have emerged as the moderate alternative to Sanders. 

Bloomberg in real life is not as powerful a candidate as is Bloomberg in the ads.

The NY Times piles onto Michael Bloomberg

Maybe Bloomberg's generosity isn't harmless. 

New York Times reports Bloomberg cannot help but corrupt the people and institutions he supports. 

No one wants to bite the hand that feeds them.

With the rise of Michael Bloomberg in the polls came an avalanche of negative stories. Once a candidate looks like a genuine competitor, opposition research sitting in file drawers gets released. 

To be expected were stories about stop-and-frisk, his comments about the financial crisis, and the lawsuits about a hostile work environment. The New York Times is also targeting Bloomberg's donations, turning one of Bloomberg's political assets into a negative. The stories are in reportage, Click: February 15, 2020, the op-eds (Bokat-Lindell, Jamelle Bouie), and in podcasts ("Bloomberg's not so Secret Weapon") 

Click: Podcast

The New York Times is not arguing that Bloomberg's donations are insincere. Bloomberg has a long record of support for public health, for education, for reproductive rights, climate action, gun registration, and recently, to electing Democrats and stopping Donald Trump. The Times is saying that some of this donations now appear strategic, certainly in retrospect, and that in any case all inevitably distort the behaviors of the recipients. 

New York Times readers understand that Trump is openly transactional in expectation of quid pro quo. It is the art of the deal. He bragged about it in the campaign, saying he gave so that politicians would come through for him. The Ukraine telephone call was perfect, he says, and it exemplifies what Trump understands as normal. Deals are the way of the world. 

Bloomberg looks like something else altogether--at least on the surface. Bloomberg's donations have been given to the advocacy causes he supports, but more appear to be purely charitable. Bloomberg, on the face of it, is the good-guy alternative plutocrat: richer, far more generous, sincere, and liberal. No quid pro quo. 

No. There is inevitable quid pro quo.

Times: All donations influence.

The New York Times says the amount he gives is so profound that it has a gravitational pull. People and institutions are influenced to compromise and bend in the direction of that money. Planned Parenthood. NAARAL. Gun registration advocates. Emily's List. Politicians he has helped and didn't help. Reporters. They cite examples of pulled punches.

It has been Sanders and Warren who have argued that great wealth is bad per se because its influence cannot be ignored. Now the NY Times adds their voice. Even when Bloomberg is good, he corrupts. He gives so much.

Thad Guyer says that is bad news for Bloomberg. Guyer is an attorney who represents whistleblower employees. He says a presidential candidate cannot win if the NY Times is leaning against him.

Guest Post, by Thad Guyer

"Bloomberg is a racist, sexist plutocrat"

That's not me, that's the growing call to arms by Democratic Party and media elites. And of course that's Bernie and Warren too. The New York Times' editorial pieces against Bloomberg have been unrelenting and growing. Some of it's most diverse and influential opinion writers have urged the Democratic Party to not sell its soul to another plutocrat with demonstrated authoritarian tendencies, not just because that would be morally wrong and further corrupt our party, but because it cannot work. See, Jamelle Bouie "The Trumpian Liberalism of Michael Bloomberg" (NYT Feb 18, 2020)and Paul Krugman's "Bursting the Billionaire Bubble-No, America isn’t waiting for a tycoon savior." (NYT Nov 11, 2019).

But with yesterday's podcast "Michael Bloomberg's Not-So-Secret Weapon" it is clear the NYT intends to do whatever it can to prevent him from being the nominee. The award winning and top tier popular podcast brands him a "media tycoon" who "paid his way into a position of influence in the Democratic Party", and accuses him of being a sexist, racist and elitist who has corrupted the Democratic Party (especially black and feminist would-be candidates), and it's NGOs, with his dark money. The 30 minute podcast presents compelling evidence that respected Democrats and NGOs have been debasing themselves for his political and charitable donations, including by deleting chapters from a book because they were afraid to offend Bloomberg and putting money over transparency. It says Bloomberg-- who has changed party affiliation three times-- is a corrupting influence with his dark money.

Making devastating campaign ads will just be copy and paste from the NYT, then Facebook targeting independents and skeptical centrist Democrats not so much to vote for Trump but not vote at all. By harpooning Bloomberg, the dynamic is simple-- you vote for Trump by simply not voting. The belief that Bloomberg will motivate Sanders and Warren voters, who feel betrayed by the process and his corrupting money, to come out and vote is absurd.

Ask Hillary Clinton-- if the New York Times goes after a Democrat in the primaries over their money scandals and foundation funneling slights of hand, that Democrat does not get elected President. 

---

Let me add, looking at today's news: the Washington Post also weighs in, both in print and podcast, calling Bloomberg a Trumpesque Neanderthal. See: "Some guy wearing a dress: Bloomberg reference to transgender people in 2019 video prompts outcry, Washington Post, Feb. 19, 2020 and "The profane 'wit and wisdom' of Mike Bloomberg" the Post Reports podcast, also Feb. 19, 2020.