Hedging Our Bets (Keep Cory Alive)

I am one of the millions of Americans who - without having much respect for, or trust in, the Democratic Party - will almost certainly vote for the Democratic nominee in next year's presidential election.

As anyone who reads this Gazette regularly will know, I deeply resent being in this predicament.  But that is business for another time.  Right now, my concern is that the deeply flawed Democratic Party should somehow nominate a candidate for President who can do three things:

First, defeat Donald Trump in both the popular and electoral vote - and in a manner sufficiently convincing that there will be no question of the winning candidate assuming power in January, 2021.

Second, have coattails sufficiently long that they will assure the election of a Democratic majority in the US Senate - and the continuation of a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.

Third, offer the sort of unifying leadership which will permit the next Administration - in conjunction with Congress - to repair the damage that has been done to our Republic by four years of Donald Trump and his snivelling collaborators in what are meant to be two separate, co-equal branches of government.  And also, move boldly forward in addressing the real needs of this nation, and the planet of which it has, until recently, been the leading nation.

Since July, I have borne an active part in the effort to choose the best possible Democratic candidate to achieve these three goals - by supporting the candidacy of Elizabeth Warren, a brilliant, persistent, ambitious Senator with a clear vision for a better future.

I continue to have the highest regard for Senator Warren.  But at this point, after serious deliberation, I am no longer convinced that she is the candidate who can do all three of the things that must be done.

I continue to believe that she is capable of defeating Donald Trump for the presidency, but I have growing doubts that she is the candidate to usher in the Senate majority without which no Democratic President will be able to accomplish what is necessary.

And I am increasingly dubious about her ability to offer the kind of broad-based appeal, and inspiring leadership, which could mobilize a majority of the American people in transforming this country.

Now, doubts are not certainties.  And after the months of hard work I have put into Senator Warren's campaigh - efforts which have taken me all over western Oregon (and far more deeply into the councils of the Democratic Party than feels comfortable) - I am extremely reluctant to change horses in mid-stream.  This is especially true because the horse to which I would change continues to poll in the low single digits, and will not participate in the Democratic Party debate on December 19.

That said, the stakes in this campaign are simply too high for me - or for any of us - to get it wrong.  We dare not nominate - even if we can elect - a President who will not be able to muster the congressional and popular support to do what must be done in the next four years.  No matter how remarkable a candidate might be - no matter how brilliant that candidate's ideas - we need to elect someone who will be able to lead us.

And I am increasingly inclined to believe that that candidate is Senator Cory Booker, of New Jersey.

For now, my position is that Elizabeth Warren needs to make significant changes to her campaign, and greatly simplify and focus her message.  If she made those changes - and won the nomination - I would hope she named Senator Booker as her running-mate.

But it is also my view that all of us - regardless of which front-runner we might support or prefer - must take steps to keep Senator Booker in this race, and to bring him back onstage for all future debates.

Senator Booker is not, as of now, the first choice of many - but he is extraordinarily well-liked by supporters of almost every candidate.  If the party remains divided - and Booker remains viable - he offers the best chance by far of being the "dark horse" candidate who can unify a divided party and lead it to victory in November.

And, because he is so likable, so energetic - and so unthreatening - he is absolutely the candidate who can help us elect a Democratic Senate majority.

I hope to return to this theme in future posts.  For now, I urge every reader to send a small contribution to Senator Booker's campaign.  Should you be contacted by a polling group, I encourage you - at least for now - to consider naming him as your choice for President.

And, if you are at all in agreement with the ideas expressed - however imperfectly - in this post, I urge you to share it with your friends and colleagues.

Senator Booker is, at present, the first choice of a small percentage of those who oppose President Trump.  But the time might well come when we need him, as the one candidate who can bring together the increasingly divided and mutually hostile supporters of the four leading candidates - and keep us together through November, and beyond.

The Schweiker Gambit

In 1976, Ronald Reagan - on the point of losing his challenge to President Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination - decided to take a gamble.  Weeks before the Republican National Convention, he announced that his running-mate would be Richard Schweiker, a moderate Senator from Pennsylvania.

The Schweiker Gambit was the result of desperation.  Despite his popularity, Reagan was being severely schooled in the awesome power of incumbency.  In the end, the gambit failed.  Indeed, it appeared to backfire, temporarily damaging Reagan's credibility with the party's aggressive and growing right wing.

In 1980, when Reagan won the nomination, he did not repeat his move.  His ultimate choice of George H. W. Bush came at the last possible moment, surprising nearly everyone.  The Schweiker Gambit has not been used by a significant major-party presidential candidate since the Gipper first introduced it, over 40 years ago.

But does that mean it should never again be tried?

In this year's Democratic field, three of the four leading candidates share one unusual characteristic:  All are over 70.  The oldest, Bernie Sanders (78) maintains a blistering pace on the campaign trail, despite his recent heart attack.  But still, that heart attack happened.  A year younger, Joe Biden campaigns more sedately, conserving his energy and trying to avoid the verbal slips which - though they have followed him throughout his career - might now be taken as evidence that he is losing a step, mentally.

The youngest of the three, Elizabeth Warren, seems to be driven by some inexhaustible power source - as though she embodies the case for alternative energy within her slender frame.  Still, she is 70 years old, and the questions which surround her male rivals cannot entirely be ignored in her case.

In a race in which three of the four principal Democratic candidates - and the incumbent president - are in their 70s, the question arises:  Should the Schweiker Gambit be revived?  And if so, how would that be done?

The case for a candidate naming her or his running-mate can certainly be made.  By long tradition, both parties routinely ratify the vice-presidential choices of their presidential nominees.  Virtually no mechanism exists for denying a newly-nominated candidate her or his choice.  Whatever scrutiny exists is performed entirely by the new presidential nominee's campaign staff. 

Yet the choice of a running-mate can be among the most important decisions a future president makes.  Search your historic memory for one thing William McKinley did that could possibly rival his choice of Teddy Roosevelt as his running-mate in 1900.  Consider the dramatic results of FDR's choosing Harry Truman.  Or JFK's decision to team up with his rival, Lyndon Johnson.

A case could certainly be made for the two major parties playing a greater role in vetting vice-presidential nominees.  In our national history, eight vice-presidents have succeeded to office upon the death of a president.  Two more - Martin Van Buren and George H. W. Bush - won election immediately following the president under whom they had served.

The mathematical probability is that the election of 2020 will be between two individuals in their seventies.  Considering this fact, the likelihood of the next vice-president succeeding to the presidency has grown disturbingly high.  Since the parties themselves seem unable to apply serious scrutiny to their candidates' choice of running-mates, perhaps the people themselves - through the primary process - should have a voice.

But how would this be done? 

It should be remembered that the Schweiker Gambit was a last-minute roll of the dice by a candidate on the verge of losing the nomination.  It should also be remembered that it did not work.  For any of the three septuagenarian Democratic front-runners suddenly to introduce a running-mate could be taken - likely would be taken - as a sign of desperation.

But what if the Democratic Party itself suggested this step?  What if the candidates agreed to it?  Perhaps best of all, what if a popular groundswell developed, demanding that all of the older candidates - or perhaps, all of the candidates, regardless of age - name their prospective running-mates before the Iowa caucuses? 

For certain, the people voting in the caucuses and primaries would be better informed, having teams to choose from, rather than individuals - one of whom would end up with an unrestricted choice next summer.

Moving toward an early choice of running-mates could also do something about the disturbing tendency of the Democratic presidential race to become a contest among white candidates.  There would be enormous pressure on all of the leading Democratic contenders to choose running-mates of color - which would restore a sense of inclusion to a contest which threatens to forfeit the enthusiasm of millions of citizens. 

Ideally, of course, candidates of color will remain in the contest for the top job.  And for certain, the Democratic Party must take serious steps to revise their debate rules so that this is the last campaign in which all candidates of color risk elimination before the first caucus or primary vote is cast.

But for 2020, we are where we are.  One hopes that Cory Booker will rally in time to rack up stronger polling numbers - or finds a way to carry on his campaign without participating in the December debate.  But for now, Booker's campaign appears to be in trouble.

That said, with high-quality candidates of color dropping out because of depleted  funds or low polling numbers, there are a number of outstanding vice-presidential choices available to candidates still in the race. 

Perhaps 2020 is the year to revive the Schweiker Gambit. 

Calling on the surviving Democratic candidates to name their running-mates in January would reassure Americans concerned that so many of their choices are in their eighth decade of life.  It would, for the first time in memory, give Americans at least some role in choosing a candidate who might well succeed to the presidency.  And it might - however imperfectly - restore at least some diversity to a contest fast becoming all-white, and very nearly all-senior.

The Fatal Mistake (December, 2003)

"South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren  (D-Mass.) have ramped up their public feud in recent days..."  The Washington Post (12/6/2019)

A word to the wise, from an old guy who has been around:  Stop this, now!

A little story...

On the afternoon of Christmas, 2003, I flew from my home in Virginia to Manchester, New Hampshire for a life-altering week knocking on doors for Howard Dean.

I only had that one week.  I was teaching high school full-time, but I had been powerfully drawn to Dean's insurgent campaign, and I'd always wanted to be involved in the New Hampshire Primary.  So when my best friend - a very wise woman - asked why I always talked about New Hampshire but never went, I made up my mind to spend my holiday break in the center of the political universe.

It was an exciting week.  I stayed in a nice hotel.  I had agreed with a Virginia newspaper to write a daily article about the experience, and the quiet of my room proved very necessary. 

This series of eight "dispatches from the front" led to a weekly newspaper column in the same paper, then another column in a local weekly, and an eleven-year career as an opinion writer.

The writing proved to be the life-altering part of my trip.  I didn't help elect a President.  Howard Dean - who was leading in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls when I flew to Manchester - was out of the contest by February 18.

The popular myth is that Dean lost the nomination because of "the Scream" - Dean's personal version of Hollywood's celebrated Wilhelm scream on the night of the Iowa caucuses.  The "Dean Scream" was actually Dean's hoarse-voiced attempt at a battle-cry, ending his speech after he ran a disappointing third.

Vermonters should never attempt a Rebel Yell.

But, as I say, the Scream is mainly a myth.  Yes, it was damaging - but it happened because the candidate had run third in a contest he had been expected to win.  Had Dean won the Iowa caucuses, there would have been no "Scream".  He would have been the front-runner, with a double-digit lead in New Hampshire - and a clear shot at the Democratic nomination and a fall campaign against an unpopular George W. Bush.

Instead, Dean ran third in Iowa, after John Kerry and John Edwards.  Kerry went on to win New Hampshire - erasing Dean's 30% lead of mere weeks before.  Three weeks later, after another third-place finish in Wisconsin, Dean ended his campaign.  The Iowa winners, Kerry and Edwards, went on to become running-mates, and lost to Bush and Cheney.

From my less-than-lofty perch as a door-knocker in Manchester, I saw the whole thing happening - and couldn't do anything to stop it.  The Dean campaign made one fatal mistake - a particularly dumb mistake - and it killed Dean's campaign and pretty much guaranteed a second term for George W. Bush.

What was that mistake?

The Dean campaign decided to go after Dick Gephardt - the former House Minority Leader who had stepped down in 2003, making way for Nancy Pelosi.  A Missourian, Gephardt ran largely on his support in the Midwest and on the loyalty of labor.  It was his second try for the Presidency, and - while he was much loved in the Party - he was hardly an interesting or exciting candidate.

I met Gephardt during my week in New Hampshire.  Since I was there as a volunteer - and was also writing a nightly column - I decided I needed to meet at least one candidate during my week.  Dean wasn't due to be in the area, but Gephardt was - at a bagel shop in Concord, across the street from the state capitol.  So I took a few hours off, drove up, and shook his hand.

I met a nice guy who was never going to be president.  His welcoming committee consisted of older men - working types - who were friendly, but hardly excited.  It was clear in five minutes that the Gephardt campaign was a sort of "farewell tour".  Gephardt was enjoying the attention, visiting old friends and supporters - maybe hoping for a vice-presidential slot - but he wasn't going to be President.

And his supporters knew it.  Both in Virginia, before I left, and in New Hampshire, I talked with any number of union folks who loved Gephardt, but were intrigued by Dean.  The message - over and over - was:  "We'll stick with Dick until he drops out, but after that, we really like Dean."

But, instead of sticking to the high road and being patient, the Dean campaign got into a pissing contest with Gephardt's people - and committed suicide.  In New Hampshire, I could see this coming.  One afternoon, when we should have been knocking on doors, a bunch of us were rounded up and dispatched to stand on a street waving Dean signs as Gephardt's motorcade passed by on the way to an event.

It was a silly way to spend a few hours - kinda fun, but mindless.  It was also challenging, as we'd be equipped with big 4' x 8' signs, which wanted to turn into sails in the cold, brisk, whirling breezes of late December. 

And of course, the Gephardt folks found out about it, and chose and alternate route, so the whole exercise proved useless. 

But it reflected something going on at a higher level.  The paid staff of the Dean campaign and that of the Gephardt campaign had decided to go after each other.  In New Hampshire, we had our silly sign-waving expedition.  In Iowa, things got a lot uglier.

And as a result, the front-runner got into a fight with a guy who was no threat.  And two candidates who were supposed to be also-rans in Iowa - Kerry and Edwards - stayed above the battle and took the top slots.  Gephardt ran fourth, and ended his campaign the next day.  Kerry won New Hampshire, with Dean second - but Dean's insurgency was over.

At the time, I knew the Dean-Gephardt scrap was a mistake.  In retrospect, I see it as the fatal mistake.  Dean was the front-runner.  Gephardt wasn't going to win.  And a lot of Gephardt's people - particularly the union people - were ready to move to Dean when their guy dropped out.

All the front-runner had to do was act like one.

So why didn't that he? 

I don't know.  But I do know this.  The people who run campaigns are human beings - but their view of a campaign is very different from the views of citizen volunteers.  For us, victory for our preferred candidate is highly desirable, but other outcomes - at least, some of them - are acceptable.

For the professional staffers, winning is all-or-nothing. They're playing for incredibly high stakes.  The key staffers of a winning candidate will probably end up working in the White House.  The rest will be looking around for jobs in gubernatorial campaigns, mayoral races, etc.  They are working incredibly long hours, eating poorly and sleeping irregularly, and under enormous stress.  They have personal friendships and animosities with staffers in other campaigns.

There's a lot of dynamite lying around, and any spark can ignite it.

But when an explosion happens, it far too often proves fatal - to both campaigns and candidates.

I've seen it happen.

So when I read that the Warren and Buttigieg campaigns are starting to attack each other this December, I think back to another December, sixteen years ago.

And I start to wonder which candidate will stay above the battle, and pick up the pieces when both combatants self-destruct.

I've never believed Sanders or Biden will win the nomination.  The Party won't have Sanders.  And Biden just proved - at that little town-hall in Iowa - that he isn't a safe choice to send into a debate against Donald Trump.

So, if Warren and Buttigieg don't make peace, who plays the John Kerry role in 2020?

My money would be on Amy Klobuchar or Cory Booker.

Or perhaps, like Kerry and Edwards in 2004, on the two as a ticket.