Embarrassment and Shame

 Another pro-Trump media outlet throws in the towel.

     "Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s Tuesday testimony ought to ring the death knell for former President Donald Trump's political career. Trump is unfit to be anywhere near power ever again."                                                                      The Washington Examiner

The Washington Examiner joins National Review and the Murdoch-owned New York Post and the Wall Street Journal.

Washington Examiner

None of the previously Trump-oriented print media outlets are any less conservative than before, nor less anti-Biden. But they are jettisoning Trump personally. Trump has become an embarrassment.

Trump is an enormously powerful storyteller and marketer. He had a superpower: Shamelessness. He doesn't admit to being wrong. He asserts as true what he wants to be true and he doesn't appear to have any reservations about it. Trump steaks are the world's greatest steaks. For real! Believe me! 

Humans respond to the conviction and certitude of others. The charismatic con works in this current media and political environment where voters, secure in their partisanship, don't integrate the objections of the little girl from the fable saying, "But the Emperor has no clothes." The January 6 hearings show that people with law licenses and reputations to protect, and the military with its institutional norms, and most local election officials rebuffed Trump at that critical time after the election. They saw what they saw and said "no."

They lacked Trump's superpower. They felt shame. They felt it would be wrong to pretend an election was stolen. People would see that they were cheating. History would condemn them.

Trump may be followed by a person who shares Trump's policy positions and skill in exploiting Democratic weakness in culture war issues. We see DeSantis successfully doing that now. 

Trump has something his likely successors do not appear to have, that shameless disregard for the truth. It takes that to insist on a Big Lie against all evidence. Trump sensed that his strongest 2016 opponent, Ted Cruz, lacked that superpower. Remember back to 2016 and Trump's method of shaming Ted Cruz. He labeled him "Lyin' Ted Cruz." He understood that Cruz didn't want to be seen as a liar. Ted Cruz wanted to be trusted--"TrusTed." Trump understood there would be a niggling voice in the back of Cruz's mind telling him that people might think less of him if he were caught doing something dishonest. That means Cruz is self-constrained. Trump, by contrast, happily suggested that Cruz's father helped assassinate JFK.  

There is Kryptonite in Trump's superpower: The little girl in the fable. People close to the action see what they see. The pro-Trump media people are watching. They are abandoning Trump. So did White House aides, Justice Department lawyers, and military people, and the Vice President.  Candidate Oz in Pennsylvania, having won his primary by tying himself to Trump, is now de-Trumping his campaign message.  Senator Ron Johnson now pretends he wasn't planning on hand-delivering "alternate electors" to the Vice President. 

I suspect Trump will not be the GOP nominee, although I would welcome it. GOP leaders understand that he would be the easiest one for the Democrat to beat. The American body-politic has antibodies to Trump now. Cautious people don't want to become the next Jeffrey Clark or John Eastman.

Ted Cruz bumper strip

The next administration could very well be a competent Republican, and such a president will push the country toward the populist right. The fear is that such a candidate will be a greater threat to our form of government than is Trump. I think not. Trump's attempted coup d' état was made possible by the GOP voters who believe Trump. That is what pushed some of their leaders into consenting to it.

Trump's superpower is rare. Trump's successor will almost certainly have a constraint Trump lacks. That candidate will feel shame. Humans are better at detecting a guilt-ridden liar than a proud one.

 

Excuses. Excuses. Excuses.

Democrats look ineffective.

If Democrats cannot solve problems voters will elect candidates who say they can.

America faces problems with no easy solutions. Democrats get the blame because they are nominally in charge, in the U.S. and in Oregon. The problems are real. The excuses are legitimate, but they are still excuses. It isn't very satisfying to a frustrated and discontented public.

This is the summer of our discontent.

Inflation. Inflation is a worldwide phenomenon, caused largely by COVID interruptions to supply chains and a world price of oil. The independent Fed by leaving interest rates too low for too long, and the Fed will fix it--by initiating a recession. A president is a victim of this, neither the cause nor cure.

Reproductive Rights. The Supreme Court unleashed the red states. Not Biden.

School shootings.  Crazy people have access to guns. Crazy people are out there. The NRA and Supreme Court blocked anything potentially meaningful about access to guns.

Build Back Better. Manchin and Sinema blocked it.

Immigration. Congress cannot pass comprehensive immigration reform. They are gridlocked.

COVID. The disease mutates and evolves on its own. We don't control it. We react to it.

Vaccinations. Republicans say no. Their bodies, their choices.

Russia/Ukraine. This is Putin's doing. We react.

Restrictions on voting. Red states make their own laws, over Democratic objections. Republicans have the power.

Federal voting rights protections. Congressional Republicans block them, and Manchin and Sinema won't budge.

End filibuster. Manchin and Sinema block doing that. 

Climate change. This is a world problem. Fossil fuels are cheap and available now, and representatives of fossil-fuel states defend their use.

Western drought and extreme weather. This is due to climate change that was decades in coming, and it is getting worse. See above. A president doesn't control the weather.

Develop wind and solar. China builds most of the components, and they have COVID lockdowns.

Develop Electric Vehicles. Raw materials for batteries are scarce, expensive, and overseas.

Medford pick-up truck window

Oregon Democrats have their own set of intractable problems. The Oregon Governor Kate Brown and Democrats get much of the blame for persistent problems.

Uncontrolled rioters. Portland police are unwilling to act and intentionally sabotage the elected officials.

Homeless encampments in Portland. No place for them to go. No one wants encampments near them. Much of the problem is due to mental health and addictions, and those are not easy for government to fix.

Columbia river bridge. The state of Washington doesn't want to connect to Portland mass transit, and Oregon needs its support.

Departments screw-ups. Employees overworked, demoralized, and quitting. Paying them a lot more is expensive.

Summer smoke.  Big forest fires come from unusually dry summers, the effects of climate change, lightning, and 100 years of forest policy. It is slow to change.

Rural areas think Portland area dominates state politics. It is true. It does. The Portland area has most of the population.

Clackamas County vote screwup. There is an incompetent Republican county clerk, elected locally.

Governing is hard. Politics is unfair. It is easier to complain. There are good reasons that the problems persist. The political problem for Democrats is that voters are impatient and frustrated. They elect people to fix problems. They want to hear that someone will be doing something. Democrats need to proposes something very big and bold and controversial on two or three of the big issues. That way they will be seen as trying. Tinkering won't do it. That will look like more of the helpless dithering people are sick of.

Trump understood that. "Build the Wall" was something people understood. Are Democrats too good and mature and realistic to propose potential solutions so simplistic? Something so easy to understand? Something people could chant or put on a bumper strip?  Republicans hope so.

How happy are you?

Does money buy happiness? If so, I don't see it.

By Vincent Van Gogh

I consider the graphic below to be a piece of art. It is a study in maroon, with a lighter area toward the middle. It denotes nothing one can think of as science, because it is a representation of a profoundly idiosyncratic and unrepresentative data set. It reminds me of Van Gogh's famous painting, which depicts a yellow vase of yellow sunflowers on a yellow table with a yellow wall. It is a study in yellows. The splotch of maroon is a study of another color, and of happiness, and money, and self-evaluation toward the end of a long life. The maroon shape looks a bit like the USA, with Texas in the south, Florida a peninsula. Maybe it is a commentary on the nation, with a distorted mirror image. Who knows?  Neither have scientific meaning. They are art. They are something to observe and consider.

A Heat Map of Wealth and Happiness

The chart below reports the responses of some 400 college classmates. The vertical axis is a self-reported index of a person's happiness on a zero-to-ten scale. The horizontal axis is self-reported net worth. 

The responses were part of an anonymous survey Harvard classmates, class of 1971. We are all about 72 years old. Of the 1,600 who graduated, about 10% of us have died. Nearly all the classmates who are alive were contacted and given a chance to participate. About 30% did participate. 

By John Posner

This isn't a representative sample of anything, including our very privileged class. We are mostly White. We are about 75% male. All of us were pretty good at high school, or we wouldn't have been in the sample. We are all college graduates and nearly all have post-graduate degrees. Lots of lawyers, physicians, academicians, and people who managed money. The median net worth is about $5 million dollars. 

Most of the respondents report their happiness as about an eight on a zero to ten scale, with some sevens and some nines. That is the sweet spot: very happy but could be happier. Only about 60 out of the 400 consider themselves to be in the generally unhappy zero-to-five range. Maybe those people exist in large numbers in the class and they expressed that unhappiness by refusing to take part in the survey. That is why this is something to ponder; not something from which to draw sharp conclusions. 

There is some skew toward thinking oneself happy if one has more money. That makes sense. If one is alive and wealthy then one might think one should be happy, and mark the survey that way, even if, objectively, one isn't any happier than the people who ranked themselves a six instead of eight. But there is less skew than one might think. At any given net-worth level, the range of reported happiness seems to be about the same, with most people in the seven-to-nine range. People with a net worth of  less than $1,000,000 people with $25 million are in that same range spread, mostly seven-to-nines. The light-colored portion of the chart is where the people cluster--the people, that is, who responded to the survey. That represents 250 of the 400 people. They are prosperous and think they are happy.

A few people are relatively unhappy. About 20 people--5% of the sample--score themselves at one to five. There are as many unhappy rich as unhappy people who aren't rich. The people who consider themselves unusually happy--the nines--also include both rich and less-rich. Money matters, I suppose, but apparently not much.

The original group of 1,600 graduates tended to have in common an achievement orientation. They were part of that class because they had ambition, at least back when they were age 16 and applying to colleges. Financial success is a form of achievement, and by age 72 most found unusual financial success. Theoretically that should make them happy, but there are many ways to fulfill ambitions and some throw off more money than others. 

One way to look at this study in maroon is not to over-think it. A bunch of 72-year-old Boomers look at their lives and decide they are mostly quite happy, pretty much without regard to how much money they have. Now wealth consists of having ones health and relationships with spouse and kids.

------

John Posner prepared the heat-map graphic. He is a retired technical writer. In retirement he volunteers for Habitat for Humanity. He played the trumpet in college, and he has taken it up again.

Posner, doing work for Habitat for Humanity

[Note:  To get this blog daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Prohibition of abortion

This isn't the first time a right has been withdrawn.

We did it with prohibition.

This, too, will work out badly.

 

Birds do it, bees do it
Even educated fleas do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

In Spain, the best upper sets do it
Lithuanians and Letts do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

                         Cole Porter 

People do it. Accidents happen.  Ask an insurance actuary. Ask a 21-year old sophomore in college staring at the home pregnancy test.

In 1919 Americans understood that alcohol caused harm, and believed we would all be better off if Americans didn’t drink. We wanted to clean up our county. We especially wanted to stop those other people who abused alcohol. The conservative churches were cheerleaders for temperance and prohibition. They were an organized minority.  Prohibition passed. It was God’s will. 

Prohibition was built on a foundation of hypocrisy. Banning alcohol would bring some discipline to those "lower sorts of people." Black drinkers. Catholics from Ireland with their whisky. Catholics from southern Europe with their wine. German-speaking immigrants with their beer. The people who passed the laws knew they had their own personal escape hatch. They had a supply saved, or could buy with a friendly-doctor’s prescription, or could make it themselves, or buy it on the black market. Drinking went underground. There was as much drinking as ever, but it was uncontrolled and lawless.

No one in an American state legislature has any genuine fear that the abortion bans would keep themselves or loved ones from getting in vitro fertilization or an abortion if they really wanted or needed one. The Supreme Court decisions allows states to ban abortion and many have immediately done so. More state bans are in the works. Banning abortion is a statement of principle, not of practical prohibition. It is virtue signaling and slut shaming.  Abortion bans are a way for traditional-values-Americans to send a message of triumph against "Hollywood-values" in all its modern manifestations. Hypocrisy makes this an easy message.

Prohibition will drive abortion underground. People made their own beer, wine, and spirits, and sometimes poisoned themselves. Women will attempt their own abortions again, or delay travel to an abortion facility, hoping nature will end the pregnancy on its own. Outcomes will be worse and sometimes fatal.

Prohibition was unevenly enforced. I am a member of a hundred-year-old private University Club. Alcohol was available there during prohibition for educated gentlemen. Uneven enforcement brought cynicism and disrespect for the law. Abortion bans will bring the same result. Actions that are a felony in one place will be practiced openly across a state line. There is no moral clarity underlying the law. This will fuel cynicism.

Accidents happen. A theme of this blog, informed by my 30-year career as a financial advisor, is that people experience the pain of loss at five times the intensity that they experience missed opportunity for gain. Abortion bans are loss. People won't accept that loss, not when there is something so life-altering as an unwanted pregnancy. So we will have the Prohibition result. All but the poorest and most vulnerable people will circumvent the law. The abortion environment will be characterized by cynicism.

I do not expect America to be going into a new long-term status quo of abortion-free states. It will resolve itself back into an era of generally available safe, legal, and rare abortions. But first we have to go through a decade of self-imposed chaos. Republicans will get blamed for the mess.

Sacrificing democracy to save babies

Evangelical Christians are Trump's most reliable supporters.

Trump's character is no secret. His sincerity as a fellow person-of-faith is doubtful. Yet they support him. 

Trump isn't one of them, but he came through for them. He delivered on abortion this week.

Today's Guest Post is from a Christian who does missionary work worldwide and hands-on charitable work with the homeless in the Seattle area. He no longer calls himself an "Evangelical." The word now describes a political orientation, not a religious one, he told me. John Coster writes that Evangelicals understand it to be God's will that abortion be ended. Trump's assault on democracy was not the important thing for them. Ending abortion is. And God is getting it done--with Trump's help.

John Coster studied Theology and Society at Regent College while continuing his career managing multimillion dollar real estate development and construction projects in the tech sector.

Guest Post by John Coster

Like many people of my Boomer Generation I was raised in the American conservative Evangelical tradition. I was taught that the two spiritual crises of the day were reflected in: (1) banning school prayer (with Madalyn Murray O'Hair, justified or not as the villain) and; (2) Roe V. Wade. The big sin was “moral relativity” and we were taught that there are certain absolutes that cannot be compromised. There are many more social issues of course, but apart from belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, abortion and school prayer were the central threats. Dobson’s Focus On the Family and other groups made these their main source of concern and it had a powerful galvanizing effect across church denominations.

John Coster

In an Evangelical Sunday School or Christian School we are taught about God’s eternal Kingdom, and how throughout history God blessed or judged nations because of the people’s level of faithfulness to God. To understand how seemingly-pious people could be bedfellows with someone as immoral as Trump, you need to appreciate the biblical view that throughout history, God has used flawed people to achieve his purposes. God is not a respecter of any leader or governmental system. In this worldview, national (biblical) holiness takes precedence over other any other “rights” or form of government. The nation’s very existence depends on it. Otherwise, we - the people of God's Kingdom - will be punished. Indeed, we are being judged already. 

What struck me as I watched and read the public response to the Supreme Court decision is the deep sense of moral outrage on both sides, which seemed to be focused on whose "rights" are being protected. The "pre-born" or the mother? The Second Amendment gun-buyer or the innocent gunshot victims? The right to express/promote religion in publicly-funded schools or not? (Wait until the "wrong" religions want public funding.)

The inconsistencies of both ends seem lost in the fog of emotion and tribalism. The Right wants a hands-off government with minimal regulation - except in certain issues like abortion. The Left wants more hands-on government - unless it steps on personal freedom (like "choice.")

I haven't asked any of my family or friends who were one-issue-pro-life Trump supporters if they think the risk of losing democracy as a form of government is worth the Roe reversal trade-off, but consistent with the Evangelical view of God's judgement, I suspect they would choose losing democracy. Their moral imperative of life trumps even the best governance model the world has seen. 

Of course, I would ask them if they thought moving to autocratic leadership (name your past or present autocrat) produces the most morally virtuous society. They are making a choice in risking democracy this way, and choices have consequences.

The New Abortion Reality

Republicans got a big win. Abortion opponents are giddy. 

Big wins create big backlash.

The Roe victory was so sweeping that even Trump was magnanimous, willing to share credit with God. "God made the decision," he told Fox News. 

This week the Supreme Court announced a Maine school decision bending toward the free exercise of religion. The Court announced a ruling against New York State's regulation of concealed handguns. Then the Roe decision. Religion. Guns. Abortion. Those are things the general public recognizes as big wins.

The legal community also noted that the Court reduced the meaning of the Miranda warning. Better for police; worse for defendants. The Court reduced the ability of federal regulatory agencies to regulate industries because it says that laws of Congress, not agency rule-making, needs to create regulations. Of course, a gridlocked and thoroughly-lobbied Congress will be unable to carry out that function. 

These five decisions have unleashed the thrill of victory and opportunity among Republicans. After a half-century of frustration, the conservative movement is a fullback breaking through the line with an open field ahead. 

At a party of lawyers on Thursday a Republican lawyer took me aside to say Trump isn't the issue for Republicans. "Sure, Trump is bad but Biden is worse. Biden is a disaster. Inflation. Afghanistan. He's the worst president since Carter. Worse, even."

I asked if he was OK with Trump and the aftermath of the election.

"Trump has done some bad things and good things," he said. "They balance out. Look at gasoline prices. $5.50 a gallon. Fentanyl is killing Americans and it is pouring across the southern border. Groceries are up. It's about Biden and inflation. I am as optimistic as I have ever been about Republican chances."

For Republicans, this week's news isn't about January 6. Opportunity beckons. A state-by-state abortion ban is just the beginning. Michael Pence spoke in Chicago:

“Now that Roe v. Wade has been consigned to the ash heap of history, a new arena in the cause of life has emerged, and it is incumbent on all who cherish the sanctity of life to resolve that we will take the defense of the unborn and the support for women in crisis pregnancy centers to every state in America. Having been given this second chance for Life, we must not rest and must not relent until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of American law in every state in the land.”

An ongoing theme of this blog is that every action creates a unintended reaction. Revolutions create counter-revolutions.  Democrats can be as energized as Republicans.

But recent experience with Texas is not encouraging. Texas has had an abortion ban since September 1, 2021--nine months ago. There was no earthquake of political re-alignment and feminist rage in Texas. Texans voted as they always have, with signs that Latino districts in south Texas may be aligning even more Republican than usual. 

There is a structural problem for abortion-rights advocates. People with means will still be able to get abortions. Beginning this morning, trigger laws have gone into effect and we now have a patchwork of states that prohibit and allow abortions. People who can raise $1,000 and take one or two days off work can get an abortion by traveling to a state that permits them. 

The effort to create a national ban might energize voters in blue states, but travel will still be an escape for the prosperous. Today round-trip flights from Houston to Toronto are about $650. It is the same price from St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Charlotte, Omaha, and Charleston. Round-trip flights from Miami to Toronto are about $850. 

International travel is more complicated. A woman needs a passport. There may be COVID rules. Canada may change its policy of medical care to U.S. travelers. They are available to people who pay out out of pocket. Currently there are wait lists, although the supply and demand for physicians might stabilize if Canada becomes a destination. These complications create an insurmountable barrier for many people. For them, abortion bans are a catastrophe. For people with financial and social capital, abortion bans are an irritating but manageable problem. 

Republicans are already making the error of overreach. State-by-state bans on abortion after 15 weeks might stake out political middle ground and a sustainable equilibrium. That is not what we are seeing. Excited by the opportunity to strike while the iron is hot, Republicans are defining abortion in a way that interferes with implantation-based contraception, in vitro fertilization, and morning-after medications. I expect that to motivate a broad-based coalition in opposition--the counter-revolution.

Democrats will win the abortion war when enough women feel that the government is affecting them, their own personal lives and decisions. Republicans seem determined to create exactly that response.

[Note: to get this blog by email every day go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Trump: A very, very close look

Optics.

A 71-second outtake reveals how carefully Trump tries to manage his image. 

Today's blog post is a close look at Trump before he is ready for his public presentation.  We can see an unguarded off-camera Trump. It is Trump being Trump. In one sense the scene is utterly anodyne--a TV pro quickly primping himself and evaluating and creating the composition of the TV shot. The video clip is interesting because it reveals his attention to detail and how the position of the water glass might affect the overall look of his presentation.

It is what we might expect from a TV star but it contrasts with his behavior in administration of his administration. Even his closest aides and confidants remarked on his carelessness, spontaneity, lack of planning, inattention to briefings, and his apparent disinterest in the details of governing. He had "big picture" ideas, and a keen eye to what ideas and words moved the public. He was relentless in selling them, but not in the process for achieving them. His primary achievement that resulted from consistent discipline over a four-year term was his remake of the federal judiciary. It was accomplished because he thoroughly delegated the task. He let The Federalist Society handle it.

He is a performer and marketer. We see him at work, getting things just right, in control in his area of interest. He wants the optics just right. Of course the January 6 hearings are infuriating for him. He realizes he looks bad. He was openly critical of Kevin McCarthy, who made the "very, very foolish decision" to let the January 6 committee be composed without Trump defenders in it. 

Other people are shaping his image. Take a look at backstage Trump, from a video documentary created by Alex Holder: The Water Glass.

First 10 seconds: enter and sit down and check monitor to see how he looks. He notices his open suit jacket.

Second 11 to 17: He adjusts suit by buttoning it and sitting up straight and pulling stomach in, looking at the monitor.

Second 18 to 20:  He does not like the water glass in the shot, and tells an aide: "I don't think you want to have the water in the picture. You can take it."

Second 20 to 34 The aide removes the table and water glass, and Trump checks the monitor.

Second 35 to 42: Trump asks for the table and water glass be brought back. "It's missing something." He directs that the cover on the water glass be removed by the aide. 

Second 43 to 50: Aide brings table back and Trump checks the shot, now with the table returned. He checks and re-checks the front button of his suit. "OK."

Second 51 to 55: "How's that look," Trump says to himself. Trump adjusts the table by sliding it 4 inches toward him. He checks the monitor.

Second 56 to 1:00: Trump now begins adjusting the water glass. Trump lifts and sets down glass, and decides the napkin doesn't look right, so he asks that the napkin be removed.  The aide comes to remove it.

Second 1:01 to 1:05: Trump moves the glass about two inches forward, and then back, trying to get the glass positioned where he wants it. He checks the monitor.

Second 1:06 to 1:08: Trump says "Right. Let's go." He is ready.

[Note: To get home delivery of this blog, go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Three-way election for Governor.

A Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent.

Oregonians are figuring out how their election for governor will shake out.

There are reliable party-line voters. There are ideological voters. There are strategic voters. There are uninterested voters. There are confused voters.

Where will they land?

I consider Democratic nominee Tina Kotek to be a liberal/progressive in the mold of Elizabeth Warren. Kotek emphasizes her effectiveness in pushing through forward-thinking blue state policies in her role as Speaker of the Oregon House.  

I consider Christine Drazan to be a generic Republican. She was the Minority Leader in the Oregon House. She says she wants to move on from Trump, and that Biden won the 2020 election. She is anti-abortion. I suspect she is generally acceptable to most GOP voters.

The third candidate is Betsy Johnson, an Independent. She is hard to categorize. That is what makes this race complicated.

I have asked other political observers to share their perspective on these candidates. The first person to take me up on that is Curt Ankerberg, a frequent candidate for Medford-area offices. He has a very controversial history with this blog and with others in this community, but his observations are a useful perspective. He is a voice of Trump-supporting conservative Republicans. 

Comment by Curt Ankerberg

Tina Kotek is a full-strength democrat. She covers the progressive bases on every issue.  You can't get more left than Tina Kotek.

Betsy Johnson is a democrat-light. She's like the dietary drink that's missing some of the main ingredients.

If you're a full-fledged democrat, then you'd probably want the real-deal full-strength candidate, with all the bells and whistles, and not the imitation, light candidate. As such, then you'd probably support Tina Kotek, and not Betsy Johnson.

Betsy Johnson is not going to appeal to the hard-core progressive democrats. They already have Tina Kotek. People who are unhappy with the democrat party, or unaffiliated voters, will gravitate to Betsy Johnson.  People who are mad at the system (which Tina Kotek represents) will gravitate to Betsy Johnson. Betsy Johnson is the "protest vote".

When Betsy Johnson speaks with republican voters (like on the Bill Meyer Show) [an AM radio talk show with populist,Trump-y, downmarket appeal], then she talks about supporting guns and timber harvesting. Both are issues supported by conservatives. She panders to republicans. 

When Betsy speaks with democrats (like at the Common Block Brewery) [the event this blog described two days ago], then she talks about the homeless and disadvantaged children. Both are emotional issues which tug at democrats' hearts.  She doesn't discuss guns or timber harvesting. Betsy is pandering to her audience. They are only getting half a picture of who she really is. When she's with republicans, then she's a different woman, like Jekyl and Hyde.

Betsy Johnson has been around a long time, and she knows how to play the game. She knows how to pander to different audiences, so that you never know who you are getting with Betsy. She used to be a hard-core gun supporter (who brags about owning a machine gun), but now she is waffling on guns, and she might support some gun restrictions. That's the danger you get with someone who attempts to straddle the fence, and play both sides. You don't know what you are getting with them. You know what you are getting with Tina Kotek, whether you like her or not. For the record, you don't know what you are getting with Christine Drazan, either. Drazan is a wild-card.

Betsy Johnson is attempting to portray herself as a "Maverick", like John McCain. She's an outsider out to fight the establishment, but she is the establishment. Betsy served in the Oregon House of Representatives as a democrat from 2001 to 2005, and in the Oregon Senate from 2005 to 2021.  That's 20 years, which is a long time.

I see some disillusioned democrat and republican voters, plus some unaffiliated voters voting for Betsy Johnson, but it won't be enough to win. Most voters will stick to their party-lines, which will leave Betsy Johnson as a non-winner in November.

[Note: Never miss a blog post. To get the posts daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.] 

 

2024 already.

The election calendar demands it. 

The 2024 campaign is underway.

Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump are hurting their parties by hanging onto their roles as party leaders. Ron DeSantis is sending signals that he isn't waiting to follow Trump. He plans on displacing him. Biden could still confound Democrats by running for re-election, but I suspect he won't. 

Count backwards. 

Start with the Vice President's count of the electoral votes in January 2025. The states will have elections in November 2024. The major parties will have conventions in the summer of 2024 when they will ratify their choices of their nominees. The convention choice is based on prior primary and caucus victories in the states, which take place between February and June 2024, starting with New Hampshire. 

New Hampshire's vote is currently scheduled for the first Tuesday in February. In recent decades, that election has followed the Iowa caucuses. This is now uncertain, at least for Democrats, because the confusion over caucus vote-tallying on election night by Democrats soured the Democratic Party on Iowa. Nevada is jockeying to replace Iowa.

By the spring of 2023 candidates will begin appearing in New Hampshire. By that summer every serious candidate will have made multiple trips to New Hampshire--25 or more individual events. They will also need to make a show of presence at conventions of party activists.

National media will describe the size and enthusiasm of the crowds. Candidates appearing to do well will have six to ten cameras and crews on the scene for each event.

The make-or-break period is between March and  October 2023, when the New Hampshire likely winners come into focus. Candidates that don't catch on drop out. That was Kamala Harris's experience in 2019. Candidates who draw enthusiastic crowds get voter word of mouth that builds. That was Pete Buttigieg's and Elizabeth Warren's experience.

 A candidate needs a campaign in the spring of 2023 to pay for operations and communication staff, for website management, for a fundraising operation, and for travel by the candidate to and from New Hampshire, Iowa or Nevada, and South Carolina. 

Even losing campaigns need staff and materials

A campaign probably needs to lease one or more vehicles as a portable campaign HQ in New Hampshire, and to keep the candidate and crew together as they move from event to event. 

Campaign bus

That means they need early money raised before spring 2023. That means now. 

A great deal is taking place under the surface. Potential candidates are feeling out the landscape. Candidates have "exploratory" campaigns. Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo  accepted invitations to speak at a Faith and Freedom event in Texas, where they got national media attention. To be credible at the "exploratory" phase a candidate needs a pre-existing network of donors and supporters. 

Trump is trying to block DeSantis from getting campaign traction.Trump attacks Republicans he thinks are disloyal to him personally, which raises the risk for donors and officeholders who might think to help DeSantis, Pence, Cruz, Hawley, or the others. Biden's announcement that he expects to run means that any Democrat thinking of running must position themself in opposition to Biden--making instant enemies and dividing the party--rather than as the successor to Biden. That is making Democrats hesitate.

Both Democrats and Republicans are waiting impatiently, noticing that the calendar is drawing short. 

[To subscribe to this blog and get it daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Campaign Event: Oregon Governor Candidate

Betsy Johnson, an Independent candidate for Oregon Governor, spoke to supporters in a Medford restaurant.

The gathering was in a public place, so I invited myself. There was an available seat behind her, looking into the light.

Betsy Johnson, with her trademark huge glasses

1. I heard about the event from a friend who called me nine minutes before the 4:00 p.m. event. "You might find her interesting," he said. I said I would check it out, and immediately drove to the event. I got there ten minutes after it started. Later, I asked how he knew about her coming to town. He said he must be on a list; he had contributed $100 to her campaign. He is an old-school Republican of the kind that used to be common in Oregon and nationally, electing people like Senators Mark Hatfield in Oregon and still electing Susan Collins in Maine. A Republican disaffected from the Trump-style GOP would be a likely target for her Independent candidacy. Betsy Johnson was a conservative Democrat, representing a rural, forested area of Oregon. 

To get onto the November ballot as an Independent, she needs petition signatures from 23,750 Oregon voters, 1% of Oregon's voters. Campaign people had petitions available to sign. My friend's $100 was a tiny part of Johnson's fundraising total. She will have a formidable campaign. Her donations have eclipsed those of other candidates, with contributions from high-profile Oregonians, including $1.75 million from Nike co-founder Phil Knight.

From: Oregonlive.com

2. The event was held at a local restaurant/brewery. I counted 80 people there to listen to her. The group was heavily skewed to people about my age, 70-ish. 

3. She spoke without a microphone. The restaurant had music playing at nearly the same volume level as her voice. I heard grumbling from others around me about the music. "The restaurant refuses to lower the volume," several people explained. 

4. She presented her case that Oregon needed an Independent candidate. She said that the Oregon legislature was nearly certain to have Democratic majorities. She said that if there is a Democratic governor, the Democrats will go forward with a strongly progressive agenda under Tina Kotek, the Democratic nominee. Kotek's primary-election campaign had emphasized her effectiveness in getting progressive legislation passed. The governor needs to be a check on Democratic excess, Johnson said. Johnson then said if the Republican candidate, Christine Drazan, became governor that Drazan would be steamrolled and opposed at every turn. There would be gridlock. Nothing good would get done. Johnson said she could work with both parties.

Johnson said she might disappoint some people in the room, but she was pro-choice. She has earlier said firmly that Joe Biden--not Donald Trump--won the 2020 election. Those are litmus tests of being a Democrat. She got no questions or objections from this audience on those two points.

She received a question from a person who complained about homeless people. He said they paid little or nothing in taxes and yet received services from the government. They don't work and they are a burden to taxpayers like him, he said. It was a soft pitch opportunity for Johnson to agree and to associate Democrats with soft-hearted giveaways to the undeserving, shiftless poor. Johnson's response leaned in the opposite direction. Most unhoused people have mental health or addiction problems, she said. Some of those people in tents on the sidewalks are families. There are young children there. She praised navigation and wraparound services which steer people into services that they need. 

She said her type of politics is popular. She said she had received both the Democratic and Republican nominations in her last election in her state House district, and that she won overwhelmingly. She credited her constituent services efforts. I go to bat for people, she said. Government is supposed to perform, to get things done. She segued into saying that she wanted agency heads to have a "say yes," customer-first attitude. 

6. I expected a negative "pox on both houses" presentation, emphasizing the problems with Democrats and Republicans. Polls show a strong majority of Oregonians saying state government is on the "wrong track." I did not hear the negativity I expected. No government bashing. No attribution of bad motives. Her presentation discussed problems, but did not cast blame or make accusations. It had a very different tone from campaigns for federal offices.

7. After about 35 minutes she stopped answering questions and began wandering from table to table to greet visitors. I had a 5:00 appointment elsewhere and had to leave early.

8. The area was indoors, but it was breezy inside, with a wide open door-wall on one side. A large gathering of likely-Republicans in this part of the state has the potential to be a super-spreader group of unvaccinated people who consider COVID an over-hyped problem. My county is one of three in Oregon with an unusually high COVID count and state authorities have once again urged people to wear masks indoors. I was wary, but seating was spacious and I was five or six feet from the closest person. I thought the open wall and high ceilings likely made the event quasi-outside, not inside. I wore a mask. I was the only person doing so.

[To subscribe to this blog and get it daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com  Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]