Bloomberg's Chance

As Michael Bloomberg suddenly becomes a viable alternative to Joe Biden at a time when Biden is tanking and Bernie Sanders - who, as the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, would be an American Jeremy Corbyn - is rising, questions about the former New York City mayor have surfaced, and he faces a triple whammy two weeks and change before Super Tuesday.  

Bloomberg still has to deal with the fallout from the "stop and frisk" policy toward young black men that he pursued as New York City mayor, his alleged defense of redlining, and newly released information about having made sexually suggestive comments about female employees before he became mayor of New York.  And since Bloomberg is quickly emerging as the one Democrat who could beat Donald Trump now that the Ukraine scandal has hurt Biden while leaving Trump unscathed, he has to go on a damage-control initiative that's less damage and more control.  Because when you have the opposite of that, you're Gary Hart.

Bloomberg has offered numerous explanations for policies he now says he regrets, saying that his "stop and frisk" policy followed demographic trends and insisting that what he meant when he said that the end of redlining caused the housing crisis was that predatory lenders lent money to people in low-income areas who couldn't possibly pay them back. As for these latest sexism charges, Bloomberg's supporters have pointed out that these charges are from the early nineties, and that he's changed his attitude toward women over time.  Fine.  So maybe Bloomberg ought to take part in the Democratic debates and offer an explanation and some damage control to establish himself for Super Tuesday.

Democratic activists are fuming over Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez's decision to change the campaign funding requirements and thus allow Bloomberg to take part in the February 19 Democratic presidential debate, assuming he meets the threshold in four nationwide polls.  Having qualified in three polls, Bloomberg should take the opportunity to participate in the debate if he qualifies in a fourth poll and make a sincere effort to put all of these controversies behind him.  It's all good and fine for him to go after Trump now, but he's not the nominee yet.

Debates So White?

Adherents of the Democratic Party's liberal wing were appalled and party leaders were embarrassed when it became likely that there would be no candidates of color in the December Democratic presidential debate after Kamala Harris dropped out.

Look, I know that the Democratic Party is the party of diversity, and I am aware that all of the racial and ethnic groups ought to be represented in a Democratic presidential nomination campaign.  I get that.  And that's how the Democrat presidential nomination campaign for 2020 started out.  But there's a reason that Harris, Cory Booker, Julián Castro and Tulsi Gabbard have either dropped out or have failed to gain traction.  Rank-and-file Democrats looked at their policy proposals and heaved a big shrug of indifference.  It's all about the free market - the free market of ideas.  Democratic voters looked at what these candidates were selling and decided they weren't interested in buying.  It's not a problem that has affected only women and persons of color - it's the reason why the presidential candidacies of white guys such as John Delaney, Michael Bennet, Eric Swalwell, and Beto O'Rourke are either struggling or finished.  It's also the reason you don't hear white guys with guitars on pop radio or see them get Grammy nominations anymore - the free market has spoken, and that sort of thing doesn't make it in the music business anymore. 

Anyway, it ought to count for something that there are still three candidates that will be on the Democratic presidential debate stage who have husbands - and one of them is a guy!  But, of course, all of this political correctness obscures the need for a greater form of diversity - a diversity of thought.  We have two main schools of Democratic Party thought between the moderates and the liberals, and there are policy differences even within each school of thought, if the differences between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are any indication.  Maybe if the Democrats stopped worrying about the diversity of skin tone and looked more at the differences of ideas and policies - the very reason there are presidential primary debates in the first place - we'd be better off.

As for the rules that narrowed the pool of candidates for the next debate, that's a different post.  I'll look at that later. 

Oh yeah, Andrew Yang just became the seventh Democratic presidential candidate to qualify for the December debate to be held on December 19 and aired by PBS, so Asian-Americans will be represented.  But I'm more interested in his inclusion for his unique ideas, such as a guarantee of universal basic income for all Americans and an annual $100 stipend for voters to donate to candidates to get big money out of politics.

Heck, I'd vote for him.

The First Debates

The first debates are over, and while I didn't see them. I picked up on what happened.  Highlights:

• Joe Biden should have explained his stand on busing and his dealings with Southern segregationists in the Senate better before he got into the debate, because, as Kamala Harris proved by going after his comments, he couldn't explain them during the debate.  He didn't even foresee that Harris was going to be an attack so because she's already been in that tole as a prosecutor and as a senator and was ready to have her way with him.  Never mind the racial difference, or even the gender difference, between them - the generational difference made Biden look like the know-it-all patriarch who couldn't accept a young'un as an equal.  Fortunately, that wouldn't be an issue if he is the Democratic nominee and opposes Donald Trump.  But if he can't withstand the withering attacks of a fellow Democrat, how is he going to withstand such attacks from Republicans?   
• Elizabeth Warren is a knowledgeable matriarch.  She was the best-prepared candidate among the top tier who had detailed plans of what to do and how to pay for it all.  Bernie Sanders is losing ground against her in the polls.  Once again, his ego is bruised after losing out to a woman.  At least they weren't on the same stage at the same time.
• Marianne Williamson loves you.  Republicans love her too.  Her performance was so comical, Republicans are giving money to her campaign to keep her in the debates going forward.
• Using Spanish on stage when your first language is English is only permissible if you are a dance-pop singer.  Beto O'Rourke and Cory Booker found that out too late. So did Julián Castro, who apparently didn't get a pass for being Mexican-American.
• As for Beto, it's easy to see why Martin O'Malley hasn't posted anything on Twitter about his candidate in over two weeks.  Besides, he has a new book to promote.
• Apart from Warren, did I like any of the candidates' debate highlights that I picked up on?  Well, I liked Michael Bennet's command of the issues and his ability to criticize Biden for putting too much faith in bipartisanship without making him feel small. Tim Ryan was impressive in pushing his manufacturing agenda, something he's bound to do in the more appropriate Detroit setting for the next debate round.  But guys like Bennet and Ryan had trouble making themselves heard among the emotional, heated discussions about race and immigration, and issues like education and the economy weren't given much attention . . . like Bennet and Ryan.  And John Delaney, after having rejected Medicare for all, found that Democrats and the media, in turn, have rejected him.

If I were a Democrat - I'm an independent - and I wanted to get behind one candidate, I'd probably back Bennet, or maybe even Ryan or Castro, but after what happened to O'Malley in 2016, I'd be wary of doing so, given how long shots rarely become favorites.  Warren is still a possibility, but it's too early to tell whether the traction she's deservedly gained can last, especially with Harris now being talked about.  And what prevents me from accepting Biden as the "inevitable" nominee is things like his response to the question of what he would do first as President.

He said his first presidential act would be to defeat Donald Trump.

Ponder that for a moment.

Once again, Unn D. Sided is the pre-election favorite. 

(P.S. Andrew Yang deserves my applause for going on stage without a necktie.  I don't wear them because I don't know how to tie one.  Neither, I assume, does he.)         

Debate Demerit

Count me out when it comes to the double header of Democratic debates happening this week.  I'm pretty much ready to vote for whoever gets the Democratic presidential nomination, and in oberving the various candidates, I've concluded that, except for a few outliers such as Bernie Sanders and a handful of opinion poll one-percenters, they all pretty much see things the same, they merely see them from a different point of view.  And I am tired of all the internecine squabbles among them.  Though, I do have to say something about the latest issue, that being Joe Biden's comments about having to work with segregationist senators to get anything passed, back in the 1970s.  He didn't mean to say they weren't horrible guys or that he agreed with their racist views. He just said he had to work with them to get things done.  On the other hand, he probably shouldn't have talked about how he and they were "civil" to each other in order to overcome their differences.  Biden only reminds people of how chivalric and gentlemanly Southern Democrats of yore comported themselves, with their cultured drawls and their polite manners, yet hey were rabid racists who advocated any means necessary to keep blacks down.

Anyway, I already have a presidential candidate for 2020, and that's the ultimate nominee.  Which likely won't be Joe Sestak.  Let me get another candidate out of the way.  Sestak, of course, is a retired Navy admiral who served two terms in the House of Representatives, representing Delaware County, Pennsylvania.  He not didn't qualify for the double debate, he announced his candidacy three days before the debating was to commence.  Sestak will likely cite his military experience as an asset, and he's a good left-of-center guy on domestic issues, but his unfashionably late start will ensure his premature end as a presidential contender.  Also, mainstream Democrats have not forgiven or forgotten him for defeating incumbent Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter in the 2010 Democratic U.S. Senate Democratic primary, only to lose to Republican challenger Pat Toomey that fall. (Sestak's 2016 comeback failed at the primary level, and Toomey was re-elected.)  With that sort of track record, he isn't going to get very far.  Hey, I like the guy, but I'm afraid Sestak just can't win.