The Iowa Caucus Has Problems

Though the Iowa Caucus has been a great idea, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get great ideas working as they should, in this new improved world of ours!  (Last I heard, someone had created an App for the leaders of the Iowa caucuses to send in their numbers, and either the App did not work as advertised, or the leaders didn't use the App appropriately.  Apps are tricky things.  And furthermore, any and all Apps can be made to report to people and websites of which the users don't know anything about.  I'm not saying that happened in Iowa, but . . . the fewer Apps, the better, if you know what I mean.)

Anyway, its going to be a while before the information from Iowa comes out, but the null hypothesis there is (in other words, what we would believe if new information is not forthcoming) that the top four contenders are running neck and neck: Biden, Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg.

Now it is time for us to worry less about what everybody else thinks, which is what most of us have agonized about thus far, and settle what we think. 

Those who simply focused on getting rid of Trump (to put it crudely) have wondered which candidate can get the most votes at the general election.  Well, for those who are afraid that the most radical candidates will alienate moderate voters, listen: a Democratic president cannot simply put things in place without the active participation of Congress.  (Well; he or she might be able to do this, but it will create a stink from both the conservatives and the liberals.)  So the most far out schemes of both Bernie and Elizabeth Warren will be toned down to the sort of plans that Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg are likely to try to float anyway.  So let us not worry about our nominee being too radical.

As far as the unaligned moderates out there: we can't do better than choosing someone who is not looking to antagonize the GOP.  None of the Democrat candidates are looking for a fight with the GOP (though, to be honest, we do think that they have betrayed themselves, and the conservative part of the population, by going this route of hostility to migrants, and belligerence to foreign nations.)

Biden: historically, he has been willing to compromise with conservatives (to the extent of talking in conservative language, occasionally).  But I'm afraid that, as some commentators have pointed out, if he is elected, Republicans could try to impeach him simply based on the Ukraine fairy tales that Trump and Giuliani have manufactured.

Warren is against the usual Washington shenanigans, but (she claims) she isn't prejudiced against the GOP as such.  I believe her; the question is whether the moderate rank and file believe her.  She has a few months to make them believe her.  She can be an excellent president, and in fact, I don't believe we can do better than her.

Sanders is becoming increasingly belligerent.  I think he would win if we have a massive Democrat turnout at the polls in November, but he is likely to get the Republicans all fired up as well.  I don't see a lot of healing taking place with Sanders on the ballot.  Now, bear in mind: Sanders is not mad at the GOP as such (or rather, he hasn't been.  After this impeachment, he is likely to be quite angry and disappointed in the conservatives), he is angry against money in politics, and corruption in government, and against the tax laws.  But those who are against money in government (and the tax laws) must also have conservatives among them.  It has only recently been the case that those who call themselves Republicans have been OK with the sorts of shenanigans that they have got into recently: with Russia, and bribery, and spreading false rumors, etc.  It is as if they're saying: we can't beat the Dems legitimately, so let's hand over the elections to Trump and these crooks, and see what we can get.

Yang is really a millennial moderate.  The young folks who have phones surgically planted in their palms see Yang as a hero, and he isn't really bad.  He hasn't alienated the conservatives, and he has retained a large number of liberal Democrats who are not interested in getting hostile with the Alt Right.  He calls himself 'a numbers guy,' and he seems at home with the numerical gymnastics that the economists like to play with: let's cut taxes by this much, and people will spend that much, and the unemployment rate will fall that much, and Wall Street will do that much.  I don't like these sorts of calculations, but if he must be the one who gets the nomination, I guess I can stand four years of him.  He at least knows the language better than Trump.

Buttigieg is a moderate.  Electability-wise, we have to consider all those whose view of the White House is that of a distinguished-looking guy in the Oval Office, and a gracious woman standing behind him, ready to help host a few nice parties for bigwigs from Europe.  I only know a few people among my neighbors.  I don't think having Buttigieg in the WH will be a disaster, but I have a feeling that it would be a tough sell.  Heck, a woman president would be a tough sell, but people have done it, and it has worked nicely.  But in these matters, the USA is not a trail blazer; we wait until it has been done in, say, Netherlands, or Russia, before we elect a gay president.

Klobuchar (Amy to her friends) is also an excellent choice, but she can't do it alone; she needs to be backed up with a strong army of administrative supporters, but I'm sure she can get one together.  She isn't committed to any of these Health Reform plans that have got some people all upset, but neither is she very hostile to any of them.  Honestly, a Health Reform plan must come from some sort of committee; I don't think it needs to be a detailed Take It Or Leave It plan.  A president needs to have the will to make it palatable, and not likely to be repealed by the GOP if they win the next election.  (The difficulty the GOP has had with repealing Obamacare simply goes to show how well the latter was put together.)

Bloomberg.  I hope he doesn't win the nomination.  If he does, it will go to show that only someone who can mobilize big, old-fashioned pots of money can win this election.  Maybe Trump has set us back a decade or two, and the idea of Big Money Can Win has captured the electorate, but I fervently hope not.  The same goes for Tom Steyer.  They both have excellent ideas, but they're sort of a tough sell; many people are tired of the bi-coastal power wielders to let them keep the leadership of the nation.  All the other candidates except Buttigieg and Klobuchar are bi-coastal types, but these two billionaires are obnoxiously bi-coastal.

So that's my take on the acceptability vs. electability conundrum we're faced with.  Of course, these issues will be decided one state at a time first.  But unless we stand by whoever the Party picks, no matter how lame, we're screwed.

Arch