How to Vote Safely During a Pandemic

The 2020 elections may rank as the most important elections since 1932, when Americans faced a fundamental choice over the direction of the country.  America's choices today also are fundamental and have been etched into acutely sharp relief by the COVID-19 pandemic.  The varying responses to the disease from different politicians and government officials, with their contrasting implications for health, life and death, vividly illustrate the importance of voting this year. But going to the polls on Election Day could involve a major health risk.  So how can one vote safely?

There are a number of alternatives to going to the polls.  They vary from state to state, so you may not have all the options listed below.  The only way to know for sure what your state allows is to check with the state's election officials.  The rules in some states are even now being changed--by government officials and by judicial decisions, as courtroom battles over voting have already begun--and may continue to change up until the moment you cast your ballot.  So the information here can't be guaranteed to be fully accurate and up to date.  But here's an overview of choices you may have, depending on your home state.

Voting by mail is perhaps the safest way, from a health standpoint, to cast a ballot.  You can just fill out the ballot at home and mail it.  Sometimes, you can drop it off in a designated drop box at municipal location, or have an agent mail or return the ballot.  Voting by mail falls into three categories. 

     Absentee ballots  requiring a specific, legally permitted reason for not being able to go to the polls, such as a physical disability, being out of town on Election Day, service in the military, and so on. 

     Early voting by mail without need for an excuse, which is now available in about 30 states.

     Mail-voting only elections, which are conducted in five states (Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington). 

The first two options--absentee ballots and early voting by mail--require you to apply for a mail ballot.  Typically, you can do this by submitting a mailed or online request.  A few states allow telephone requests.  States with the third option--mail voting only--mail ballots as a matter of course to all registered voters.

There have been controversies over the delivery of mailed ballots (see https://www.salon.com/2020/08/08/friday-night-massacre-at-us-postal-service-postmaster-general-boots-top-brass-ahead-of-election_partner/).  Sometimes, questions have also been raised about agents permitted to collect and return ballots.  It's best to mail or submit a ballot yourself.  Make sure you trust any agent you use to submit your ballot. But don't let these delivery issues deter you from voting by mail if you feel it's your best choice.  Responsible Americans are working very hard to ensure the validity of voting by mail, and we should not now shrink from exercising our franchise as citizens in whatever way we think is best.

Early voting involves going to a designated place (usually a local government office, but sometimes other locations as well) before Election Day and voting in person.  The time period for early voting can begin as early as 45 days before the election, or as little as a few days, depending on the state.  While early voting requires you to go to a public office, it may involve less congestion and waiting than going to a polling station on Election Day.  So your health risks may be lower.  And it is one way to ensure that your ballot gets into the hands of election officials.

Online voting, where you vote from a cell phone or other computing device, is in its infancy.  Early experiments have raised security concerns and there is very limited online voting in America.  If you have this option (and very few of you will), think carefully about the possibility that a hacker may vote for you, and if you don't like that idea, consider your other choices.  But, whatever your choice, remember to vote.

Donald Trump's Very Bad Day in the Stock Market

Today, March 4, President Trump had a very bad day in the stock market.  Yesterday, Super Tuesday for the Presidential primaries, Joe Biden won a series of contests among the Democrats and took the lead in delegates over his principal rival, Bernie Sanders.  Today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose almost 1,200 points in celebration. 

Since before his inauguration, Trump has touted a buoyant stock market as one of the hallmarks of his Presidency.  To him, it signaled approval, achievement and prosperity.  Whenever the market showed signs of queasiness, Trump was quick to pummel the Federal Reserve Board for interest rate cuts to prop up stocks.  Trump equated stocks with himself, and stocks seemed to reciprocate.

But not today.  Today, the market loved Joe Biden.  And Trump could only watch the love fest. The market no longer needs him.  It can bounce up with Biden in the White House.  The contest for the Democratic Presidential nomination is far from over.  Biden's lead over Sanders is modest, with close to two-thirds of the delegates yet to be chosen.  Many of the remaining primaries are in Western and Midwestern states, where the demographics may be more favorable to Sanders.  But if Biden can maintain his momentum and secure the nomination, Trump won't be able to count on the stock market for support.

Trump Should Be Unhappy that Mueller Is Investigating a Democrat

News services report that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is now investigating Democratic lobbyist Tony Podesta for possible failure to register as a foreign agent.  (See https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mueller-now-investigating-democratic-lobbyist-tony-podesta-n812776.)  This isn't good news for Donald Trump.

Democrats might be embarrassed or concerned by this new development, because Tony Podesta is the older brother of John Podesta, the manager of Hillary Clinton's recent presidential campaign.  But it's also bad news for President Trump and other Republicans caught up in Mueller's investigation.  By including a Democrat within his purview, Mueller undermines any contention that he is politically biased and demonstrates his neutrality.  That strengthens his credibility, whether he eventually seeks charges against Republicans, Democrats or both.  Republicans feeling any satisfaction from the news of Mueller's investigation of Tony Podesta need to rethink things. 

Can the Republicans Govern?

With the postponement of the House of Representatives' vote on repealing Obamacare twice in two days, one must ask whether the Republicans can govern.  They control Congress and the White House, but they weren't able to fulfill one of their signature promises from last year's elections.  Dissidents on the far right and in the moderate middle couldn't, for different reasons, sign up for the repeal measure.  President Trump, drawing on his dealmaking experience in business, gave them a take it or leave it compromise--and they left it.  In business, if you pass on a good deal and go for a great deal, you can blow the deal.  But in politics, as Trump may be learning, you can often score points with your constituents by going for a great deal and losing the deal instead of compromising.  Politicians get ahead by telling voters what they want to hear--indeed, that's how Donald Trump got himself elected President.  But doing things that leave voters with mixed feelings--like compromising--places politicians at risk in the next round of primaries.  It's better to look and sound good than doing anything that could leave you open to criticism.

Obamacare will now become a permanent part of the American landscape.  Its essential features--universal access to coverage, subsidies or Medicaid for those unable to pay, no exclusion of pre-existing conditions, and substantial coverage of health problems--will form the foundation of American health insurance for the future.  Surely, Obamacare will be modified over time.  But Barack Obama's greatest legacy will live on.

For the Republicans, the Party of No, a more important question is whether they even understand what it takes to govern.  It's necessary to compromise, and to take the heat from compromising.  The Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, is a coalition.  If coalition members don't work together, governance does not happen.  The next great challenge for the Republicans will probably be the budget bill and tax reform, which will have to go hand-in-hand if the Republicans hope to accomplish everything they've promise.  Their problem is they've made too many promises for the amount of tax revenues the federal government will collect.  They can't boost defenses spending by $54 billion, build the Wall at the border with Mexico, cut corporate taxes, cut taxes for the wealthy (which is an unstated but obvious goal of theirs, given that the proposed repeal of Obamacare was more a bill to cut taxes on the wealthy than improve the health insurance system), and rebuild America's infrastructure, all at the same time.  Something has to give.  Either taxes are raised, federal deficit spending increases, and/or the Republicans give up on some of their goals.  The Republicans will have to compromise to accomplish anything.  But their failure to work out a compromise to repeal Obamacare does not portend well for their future.

Although virtually powerless right now, the Democrats must have gotten a lift today.  Their fortunes have started to turn around.  As devastating as their defeat in 2016 was, it's not the end of the world, or of their party.

How Putin Has Already Blown It

On election day in 2016, Vladimir Putin must have thought he was a pretty smart guy.  The candidate for President of the U.S. that he favored, Donald Trump, had won.  Putin, according to America's intelligence agencies, tried to help Trump out through various nefarious means to discredit Hillary Clinton.  Although it's unclear how much Putin's underhanded tactics affected the actual vote, he probably wasn't averse to giving himself a pat on the back.

That was then.  Things are different now, just two months later.  U.S. intelligence agencies have revealed Putin's shenanigans. Important leaders in Congress, including Republicans as well as Democrats, are alarmed.  Trump nominees for cabinet positions, when asked about Russia, have been very careful to distance themselves from Putin and Russia.  Even Trump has had to admit that Russia tried to interfere in the election.

The uproar will limit Trump's options with Russia and Putin.  Congress won't give him a free hand in dealing with them.  It will be tough on the issue of sanctions.  It will insist that the U.S. honor its pledge to defend NATO members.  It will insist that human rights still exist and must be defended.  It will insist that Russia's military aggression not be rewarded with friendship,

Putin has already blown it.  He incorrectly assumed that his misdeeds would go undetected.  But that didn't happen, and now he's been exposed.  He's proven to be an embarrassment and a liability to his buddy, Trump.  The bromance may have to cool off.  Trump has been on the defensive about Putin and Russia, and his post-election sheen is a little tarnished.  Trump has lost some power even before he took office, power he might have needed to cozy up to Russia and Putin.  Too bad, Vlad.  You may have outsmarted yourself.

Winners and Losers in the 2016 Election

This was one wacky election, and there are some unusual winners and losers.
 
Winners.  Among the least obvious, but most important winners are liberal Democrats.  The middle-of-the-road, milk-the-liberals-for-votes-and-then-abandon-them strategy of Bill and Hillary Clinton is definitively dead, with a stake driven through its heart.  Bernie Sanders is a major victor from yesterday's election, as he now has a chance, along with Elizabeth Warren, to reshape the Democratic Party.  The Clintons' decades old strategy of cozying up to Wall Street and other obscenely rich donors while talking but not walking like progressives blinded them to the prairie fire boiling up from people who work hard but for not a lot of money.  Sanders and Warren, who may be the most influential Senators today, won't make that mistake.  They will reach out and try to help the people who are driving politics today.  Politics is ultimately about the flow of crowds, and you can't capture the energy of insurgents by condemning them as deplorable. 

Another major winner is the FBI.  Had Hillary Clinton been elected, the specter of possibly wholesale "personnel changes," shall we say, might have hung over the FBI, crippling its ability to function in numerous crucially important arenas.  Donald Trump and whoever he appoints as Attorney General would be wise to leave the FBI unconstrained to conduct business regular way, with no hint of a political agenda.  Everyone benefits when law enforcement is evenhanded. 

And, of course, another winner is that . . . what's his name?  Oh, yes, Trump.  That Trump fellow will find out that running for President is a whole lot easier than being President.  It's one thing to make speeches.  It's another altogether to make things happen.  Even though the Republicans control both the House and the Senate, that doesn't mean Trump will have a successful Presidency.  Barack Obama had the advantage of a Democratically-controlled Congress at the beginning of his first term, and his approval ratings have fallen dramatically since then.  Donald Trump will have to find a way to work with all kinds of people, and lashing out at them isn't likely to be productive.

Losers.  One of the biggest losers is the Establishment.  Both the Democratic and Republican establishments got their heads handed to them yesterday.  An outside observer can readily tell that it's time for change.  But people holding power rarely give it up without a struggle.  George Washington set a noble example when he refused to run for a third term as President and returned to Mount Vernon.  Try to find someone as noble as that in today's political establishment and you'll have more luck seeking the Seven Cities of Cibola.  Things are likely to get ugly as both parties struggle to change. 

Big Money Donors got hammered in this election.  They bet on Hillary Clinton and a platoon of mainstream Republican primary candidates, and wound up only with much smaller bank accounts.  It turns out that, in democratic politics, money isn't everything.

The Democratic Message was lost.  In fact, perhaps the most important reason Hillary Clinton lost was she had no message.  All she seemingly did was attack Trump and proclaim, ad nauseum, that she wasn't Trump.  Trump had a message, a message of hope for working people who usually have only stagnation and despair.  This was not a message that Clinton or the elitist mainstream press clearly discerned.  But Trump got through loud and clear to his supporters.  Nothing drives voters as much as hope.  Trump instilled hope in his constituents.  Clinton didn't seem to have hardly anything positive to say about the future, and her potential constituents lacked the most powerful motivation in politics to vote.

Of course, there is Hillary Clinton.  Bill and Hillary's time in politics is over.  One wonders if they know it and will be able to step aside graciously.  The successful resurrection of the Democratic Party depends on the establishment of new leadership.  But the tremendous cash flow the Clintons have enjoyed since Bill left the White House appears closely linked to their power in the Democratic Party.  If they give up the power, the cash is likely to flow to the new power players.  Since Bill and Hillary have an obvious love of money, the struggle to rebuild the Democratic Party could be grisly. The Clintons, now more than ever, need to think about their legacy.  They already have more than enough money to live in luxury for the rest of their lives.  But, given their baggage that was recounted ad infinitum during the campaign, their legacy needs a lot of work.  Graciousness would be a very valuable first step.
 

Happy Halloween, America

This may be the scariest Halloween ever.  Two ghouls are in the lead for the Presidency.  They claim to be people, but that seems to be just a masquerade.  Even in their guises as humans, they are horrifying.  Parents could use their names to scare children to eat their vegetables and do their homework.  But then the children would have nightmares.  The parents already do.

The financial markets are being inflated by the Federal Reserve into a monstrous bubble, a bloated spectral presence that could bring back the demons and vampires of the 2008 financial crisis.  Pension plans, annuities and long term care insurance are being scared to death by ultra-low interest rates.  Anyone hoping to retire is hanging garlic over their front doors.

Overseas, demons, banshees and poltergeists bedevil us.  The Middle East is a seething mass of murderous conflict, seemingly a nightmare from which we can't wake up.  North of the Middle East, a fiendish demon toils at midnight, boiling eye of newt, toe of frog, wool of bat, and tongue of dog into a toxic mix that he flings in all directions while chanting diabolically in a language not heard since ancient times.  In North Korea, a beast with curved horns labors with a crooked smile revealing jagged teeth to find ways to deliver inferno thousands of miles.

Our industrialized economy spews noxious fumes that heat the Earth hotter and hotter.  Everything we ingest--food, water, and air--causes cancer or heart disease.  Even sweetness itself, in the form of sugar and other natural sweeteners, silently stalks our health. 

Alfred Hitchcock never made a movie so scary.  The real world would scare the bejesus out of Vincent Price.  If Stephen King needs inspiration, he can simply pick up a newspaper.  The truth is we have Halloween year round.  The only thing that happens on October 31 is people wear costumes.  The rest of the time, we can only try to stay safe, if that's possible.  Happy Halloween, America.

Did Ted Cruz Make Trump More Liberal?

Ted Cruz's up your's speech at the Republican National Convention may end up pushing Trump toward the political left.  By advocating "vote your conscience," Cruz encouraged far right members of the Republican Party to abandon Trump.  To make up for this loss, Trump may shift to the left to win over voters in the political middle.  Indeed, he could be doing so already, with a favorable nod toward the gay community in his acceptance speech last night, and with his daughter Ivanka's promise that he would address the gender gap in pay.

If Trump wins in November, a possibility even though polls indicate that it's Hillary Clinton's election to lose, then as President he may prove to be more liberal than he now seems.  That's because Cruz and other far right members of Congress will probably obstinately refuse to compromise with him, just as Cruz wouldn't compromise at the convention.  Trump is a wheeler and dealer.  If he can't do deals with the far right, he might do deals with moderate Democrats.  This wouldn't be hard, since Trump has been a moderate Democrat at times in his life. 

It's debatable whether Ted Cruz helped or hurt himself by digitally saluting Trump at the convention.  But he may have given Trump more latitude to go more liberal.  And if Trump wins, Cruz may have empowered moderate Democrats. 

How the Libertarian Party Could Win the White House

Polls persistently show that many, if not most voters, reach for one of those little white airline bags every time they think of the two leading Presidential candidates.  Never before have so many voters been so nauseated by so few candidates.

But if you look away from the mainstream press for a moment, you'd find out there are two other parties fielding Presidential candidates.  The Libertarian Party has nominated Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, for President, and William Weld, former governor of Massachusetts, for Vice President.  The Green Party has nominated Jill Stein for President and Cheri Honkala for Vice President.  The Green Party has only a tiny presence in national politics.  But the Libertarian Party, seemingly a minor player, might actually have a shot at the White House.  Here's how.

To be elected President, a candidate in the first instance has to win a majority of the electoral votes (i.e., 270 of the 538 total electoral votes).  The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution provides that if no candidate has a majority, the House of Representatives then selects the President from the top three candidates. 

If the two leading candidates are running neck-and-neck in electoral votes, a third party could deny each of the two top candidates a majority by winning one, two or a few states (and thereby denying the electoral votes from those few states to either of the leading contenders).  Even though the third party might not have anywhere near a majority, it could force the election into the House.

The contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is likely to be close; neither seems to be able to open up much of a lead over the other.  More importantly, Clinton's unremitting tawdriness and Trump's unerring aim at his own feet ensure that many voters will yearn for an alternative.  Johnson and Weld are experienced politicians will real electoral credentials, having respectively served as governors of their home states.  They are polling between 5% and 10% nationally.  But, in some conservative states, they might be able to become real contenders.  The Libertarian agenda of small government and low taxes might resonate strongly in states like Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, all of which gave primary victories to Ted Cruz over Donald Trump.  If Johnson and Weld won one or more of these states, and the electoral breakdown between Clinton and Trump is close, it's possible no candidate would have a majority of the electoral votes and the election would go to the House.

In the Republican-controlled House, Clinton would be toast.  Period.  Trump would have supporters.  But he'd have detractors, too.  The Libertarian platform would appeal to many Tea Party and other right-wing members of Congress.  Both Johnson and Weld were Republicans when they served as governors, and perhaps many members of the House would prefer them to the unpredictable Trump, who in the past was sometimes Democratic and sometimes Independent.  Johnson and Weld would have to demonstrate flexibility and open-mindedness.  The zealotry of many past Libertarian candidates has ensured the party would be marginalized.  But, having had much real-life experience in politics, Johnson and Weld might talk turkey well enough to win over a majority of the House.  And Speaker Paul Ryan's extremely tentative, to say the least, support of Trump would probably not present much of a barrier to a Libertarian victory if most of his Republican colleagues wanted to vote that way.

Of course, many mainstream Republicans in the House might well balk at supporting the Libertarian candidates.  But when they consider the alternative--Mr. Maniacal Mouth--they'd probably give Johnson and Weld a pretty close look.  All this may sound like an overly elaborate speculation on a very long shot.  But, given how weird this election has already been, it just might be the way things turn out.

We're All Temporary Workers

According to data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, middle aged Americans are, on average, likely to have held 11 or 12 jobs by the age of 48.  See http://www.bls.gov/nls/nlsfaqs.htm#anch4.  The same group will have, on average, experienced 5 or 6 periods of unemployment by the age of 48. See http://www.bls.gov/nls/nlsfaqs.htm#anch42.  Only about 10 percent of these workers will have had between 0 and 4 jobs by age 48.  In other words, the long lasting, stable employment that we anticipate for adulthood is mostly a mirage.  Few of us enjoy that kind of certainty.  Indeed, it's fair to say just about all of us are temporary workers.

Of course, there are differences among workers.  Some are considered full time, others part time.  Some are permanent--either full time or part time--and others are temporary--either full time or part time.  But the average American, with about 12 jobs by the age of 50, is realistically a temporary employee, just with better benefits if he or she is considered "permanent" and is working full time.

The impermanence of employment means fewer employees qualify for defined benefit pensions, even in the few jobs that still offer pensions.  It also means that in the real world, workers have trouble building up their 401(k) and IRA accounts, because they're periodically hit with a spell of unemployment or have to rebuild benefits at a new employer.  Many workers draw down their retirement accounts during episodes of joblessness.  When they resume working, they have less time to build up their balances again.  The only ways to counteract the temporariness of employment is to save furiously, or, if you're lucky enough to have a job offering a pension, to somehow stay put long enough to qualify for the pension, no matter how boring the job or overbearing the boss.

The wobbly, and sometimes turbulent, work lives of most people place this year's politics in sharp focus.  The debates over Social Security, health insurance, trade policy, jobs programs and wage stagnation become all the more crucial when we consider that, in the end, we're almost all temporary workers. Proprosals that enhance stability for workers, like protecting and strengthening Social Security and Medicare will be popular.  Measures like free trade agreements are likely to be losers.

But don't count on the government to bail you out.  You're not a major financial institution, so assume that there will be no bailout for you.  Save as much as you can--and then save some more.

Big Trouble For the Establishment

America's political Establishment is in big trouble.  The Democratic Establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton, is steadily sinking in the polls compared to Donald Trump, and is now barely ahead of him, after many months of double digit leads, (see http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/22/clintons-lead-over-trump-shrinks-to-3-points-new-nbc-newswsj-poll.html).  Or else, she marginally trails Trump (see http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/22/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-polls/index.html).  At the same time, Bernie Sanders has a clear lead over Trump (see the NBC/WSJ poll).  Because of the Clinton power politics machine, Hillary will almost surely be nominated.  The Democratic Establishment apparently cannot believe that an insurgent like Trump could defeat Hillary.  But an insurgent Democrat did beat her in 2008, and another insurgent Democrat has come darn close in 2016 (and isn't entirely out of the picture yet).  Even worse, polls now indicate the insurgent on the Republican side may defeat her.  If she loses, which seems a possibility, the Democratic Establishment will have undermined itself by supporting her.

The Republican Establishment is faced with a different, but also existential, challenge.  Donald Trump isn't an Establishment guy.  If he wins in November, the Republican Party's power structure will be recreated as he dictates.  Trump skeptics and professional scoffers who have pooh-poohed his candidacy may hear Trump's memorable words, "You're fired."  While many in the Republican power structure are now negotiating with Trump for some kind of entente, there are probably not a small number who won't support The Donald.   

The political Establishment in both parties wins if Clinton wins.  They both lose if Trump wins.  With the polls moving toward a dead heat between Clinton and Trump, one wonders whether some establishment Republicans might not find quiet ways to support Hillary.  With a Republican controlled House (and maybe Senate), she couldn't change things much--and that's what the Establishment wants.  But if Trump wins, a lot of things could change (although many would say not in a good way). 

If Bernie Sanders improbably gets the Democratic nomination, he might well defeat Trump and the Democratic Party would have to change.  But that would be in ways that he's already begun forcing it to change.  Bernie, however, isn't an Establishment guy, and the Democratic power brokers have moved to repel his assault on their ramparts.  We have an odd election cycle--the Democrats indulge in machine politics, where might makes right.  The Republicans, much to their consternation, have become democratic, with voters imposing their will on the power structure.  The establishments of both parties should be reflecting on their shortcomings.  But don't expect them to instigate change on their own.  That will have to be forced on them by the electorate.

In Choosing Clinton, Will the Democrats Take the Harder Road?

With Ted Cruz dropping out of the Republican primaries after losing in Indiana, it really does matter whether the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.  A recent Reuters poll shows Clinton leading Trump by almost 9%:  http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TM651Y15_13.  However, in another Reuters poll, Sanders leads Trump by 16%:  http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TM651Y15_14. Polls taken two months ago show that Sanders was comparably stronger against Trump than Clinton:  http://blogger.uncleleosden.com/2016/03/bernie-sanders-is-most-electable.html.

Donald Trump will now surely be the Republican nominee.  He has displayed remarkable political talent, and has blasted his way through a vast field of experienced, well-funded and strongly supported career Republican politicians.  Hillary Clinton's negatives and baggage offer Trump big, fat, juicy targets.  With his skill at handling the media, he may well close the 8-9% gap between himself and Clinton and force her into an extremely tight race.  Bernie Sanders, by contrast, with his humble background, modest finances, and rumpled clothes, presents a harder target to hit.  There aren't that many cheap shots Trump could take at him.  Trump would have to attack Sanders' policy proposals and platform--and that's exactly where Sanders would like the debate to be.  By relentlessly pushing his ideas, Sanders closed an enormous gap between himself and Clinton.  He's won with his ideas and his victory today in Indiana shows his continued appeal to voters.

Contrary to what many self-satisfied Democratic insiders believed this morning, the Republicans will not tear their party apart.  Trump has the rest of the Spring and the Summer to stitch together a united Republican front.  Sanders, having just won Indiana and likely to win more upcoming primaries, isn't stepping out of the race.  The Democrats face a dilemma:  whether to nominate Clinton, the candidate with the most power within the party, or nominate Sanders, the candidate most likely to beat Trump.  Power politics will probably prevail.  But in choosing Clinton, the Democrats may be taking the harder road to the White House.

Bernie Sanders is the Most Electable Candidate for President

The latest CNN/ORC poll shows that Bernie Sanders is the most electable candidate for President.  He would beat Trump (55% to 43%), Cruz (57% to 40%) and Rubio (53% to 45%).  By contrast, Hillary Clinton would beat Trump (52% to 44%), but would trail Cruz (48% to 49%) and Rubio (47% to 50%).  In other words, Sanders is the candidate most likely to win the Presidency in the general election, should he become the Democratic nominee.  Clinton's well-known negatives continue to dog her.

Clinton is supposed to be more electable than Sanders, but the latest poll negates that notion.  While Clinton has numerous advantages that give her the lead in the primaries for the Democratic nomination, she appears more likely to lead the party to defeat in the fall.  Sanders faces a difficult, uphill path in the primaries.  But if he succeeds in getting the nomination, he may well be the next President of the United States.

So if you're voting Democratic, and want to increase the chances for a Democratic President for the next four years, choose Bernie Sanders.  You can find the new CNN/ORC poll here: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-poll/index.html.

Hillary's Obama Gambit

Hillary Clinton has embraced Barack Obama's policies and legacy, and has promised to continue them if she is elected President.  This has helped her draw the support of African-American voters, who she desperately needs to counteract Bernie Sanders' appeal to the young and the independent.  It's helping her now, in South Carolina and other Southern states.  But she will pay a price if she becomes the Democratic nominee.

The key to the general election will be the ability to attract the support of independents.  The Republican and Democratic nominees, whoever they may be this year, will have the support of the conservative right and liberal left, respectively.  The winning candidate will be the one to whom independents flock.  Independents, to be sure, aren't always the same as moderates or middle of the road voters.  They are often beyond classification, very conservative on some issues while simultaneously very liberal on others.  But if you try to paint them as libertarians, they will turn out to be staunch supporters of big government safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare.  These are the disaffected drawn to Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.  They often don't like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  And they are likely to dislike Clinton even more for embracing Obama's legacy.  By positioning herself as Barack Obama's ideological successor, Clinton makes herself less attractive as a candidate to a large group of voters who are likely to be crucial to victory. 

Barack Obama had an almost unique ability to draw the support of traditional Democratic constituencies and independents.  Hillary Clinton doesn't have that ability.  By promising to take up Obama's mantle, she has made herself into a target which, in the general election, the vast right wing conspiracy will bombard with Super PAC funded ads highlighting her sworn fealty Obama.  Many of the Obama haters will turn against her, and vote for the other candidate.  Traditional Democratic constituencies may not be enough to elect her.  She's gained a short term advantage, but a long term problem.

Bernie Sanders' Appeal

Bernie Sanders is now running neck and neck with Hillary Clinton in the first two primary states, Iowa and New Hampshire.  How is it possible that a first term senator, an avowed Socialist, from one of the smallest states, a virtual unknown a year ago, could challenged the mighty Clinton political machine?

In a word, because he cares.  Bernie Sanders is a throwback to the 1960s, a let's-change-the-world type who, after fifty-five years, seems still to be responding to John F. Kennedy's challenge:  "ask what you can do for your country."  His campaign is about helping others and improving their lives.  His rumpled sartorial disarray is vivid evidence that he doesn't obsess over himself.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton continues to run a perfectly coiffed, highly calculated, endlessly scripted campaign focused on burnishing her image, protecting her from attack, and saying what the pollsters tell her voters want to hear.  It's hard to avoid the feeling that she's in it for herself, that this is all about Hillary. 

Voters respond favorably to candidates who care about them.  That's Politics 101, but not every politician seems to get it.  Bernie Sanders does.  Even though he still faces a very steep climb to get the Democratic nomination, his chances are growing.  Eight years ago, a first time senator from Illinois convinced voters that he cared about them, and beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.  It could happen again.

How The Donald Could Beat Hillary

The stolid burgermeisters who run the Republican Party shrink with horror at the thought of nominating Donald Trump as their presidential candidate.  His verbal atrocities are reaching the level where they might offend Attila the Hun, and the conventional Republican wisdom is that there is no way Trump could beat Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee.

However, the latest polls that follow Trump's bloody comments directed at Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly show that Trump's support among the electorate remains essentially unchanged.  If this persists, The Donald will be a force to be reckoned with in the Republican primaries.  Democratic strategists are probably delighted, because they, too, are likely to believe that Clinton can easily beat Trump.

However, Clinton's 2008 campaign also thought she could beat Obama, and there was a problem with that line of thinking.  How could Trump beat Clinton in 2016?  By doing pretty much what he is doing now.

Within living memory, Trump has been a political centrist, and has even expressed support for liberal positions on some issues.  He's made donations to Democratic candidates.  He even made donations to the Clinton Foundation and invited the Clintons to his 2005 wedding.  As a candidate for the Republican nomination, Trump has slid dramatically to the right, proposing a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border that Mexico would have to pay for and the defunding Planned Parenthood, and generally foaming out of the right side of his mouth.  Plain talk pays off in this election cycle (see http://blogger.uncleleosden.com/2015/05/a-winning-strategy-for-2016.html) and Trump is presumably saying what he thinks will help him win the primaries.  Plain talk is certainly paying off for Bernie Sanders.

In the general election, however, if Trump is the Republican nominee, he could easily slide leftward, shifting his views to draw enough support from the political middle to win.  It wouldn't be hard for him to adopt centrist positions, since he's been a centrist for much of his life.  There is plenty of precedent for candidates from both parties to shift toward the middle in the general election.  The advantage that Trump has over Clinton is that he appears sincere, unscripted and bold.  Clinton seems unable to emerge from her cautious, calculated, too well-burnished image.  We can't see the real Hillary; and her destruction of e-mails only compounds the sense that we'll never get to truly know her. 

Both Trump and Clinton have tarnished images.  But Trump appears to have a way to overcome the tarnishes in his image.  Clinton seems bedeviled by the tarnishes in her image, and apparently can't prevent them from dominating the news coverage of her candidacy.  If this state of play continues, The Donald just might beat Hillary if they were to meet in the general election.

A Winning Strategy for the 2016 Presidential Election

Be unscripted.  That's the way to win the Presidential election in 2016.  The American people are looking for an authentic, sincere, unscripted candidate they can, for the most part, agree with.  Someone who speaks from the heart, and empathizes and sympathizes with them.  Someone they can sit down and have a beer with.  Not that they need to agree with everything the candidate advocates.  You can disagree with your friends and still like them.  But you can't be friends with a phony.

Unfortunately, scripting is what modern politics is all about.  Data-driven, Internet-interfaced, bet-hedged down to the last precinct, today's politics is a game of angles, maneuver and percentages.  There is a lot of well-deserved publicity about money in politics. But the money has to be spent wisely.  As Mitt Romney demonstrated in 2012, simply having a lot of money doesn't win the election.  It's important to appear genuine.  Mitt couldn't pull that off when it came to hunting or being a right wing maniac (a prerequsite for bringing the far right to the polls).  He is basically a moderate who tried to pose as a conservative and came across as implausible.  That cost him the election.

The political cognoscenti understand the importance of appearances.  Armies of political scriptwriters are furiously working on scripts for how to appear unscripted.  Candidates are making appearances in very small towns in Iowa with real people, as in folks who might drive nine-year old cars because they can't afford anything better.  Candidates appear in shirtsleeves and eat ethnic food, preferably the kind that's not healthy so that you don't appear preachy about diet. 

But the electorate isn't fooled.  Hillary Clinton seems to have used her financial war chest to scare off serious primary challengers.  But she's so heavily scripted she's having trouble generating enthusiasm outside her longtime coterie of loyalists. Jeb Bush was against the invasion of Iraq, then he was for it, then, last we heard, he was against it.  At this rate, he won't have a chance even with the ardent support of the Republican establishment.  There are genuine, sincere wackos on the far left and far right.  But the general election won't be won by a mouth-foamer.  It will be won by a charismatic, empathetic, reasonable candidate who captures the public's imagination.  And that candidate will . . .  uh . . . perhaps . . . um . . . arrive with Godot.

Obama's Irrelevance

Barack Obama is becoming irrelevant.  With a Republican-controlled Congress, he cannot implement much of his agenda.  When he tries, he has to ally himself with the Republicans, as he recently did on trade policy.  The result was to aggravate the Democrats in Congress, who used the moment to extract concessions of their own.  Now, the Republicans don't like Obama, because he's a Democrat.  The Democrats don't like Obama, because he's not really a Democrat.  And Obama finds himself without any real friends in Washington.  Not that anyone has real friends in Washington, except maybe their dogs.  

ISIS does its best to give the President opportunities to shine.  With every atrocity, the extremists provide another excuse to drop a smart bomb or authorize a Special Ops raid on the hideaway of some senior nasty guy.  But in the war against terrorism, there is no Omaha Beach, no Bastogne, no bridge at Remagen, no unconditional surrender.  And there won't be much opportunity for a President to build a lasting legacy. 

The President would like very much to pivot toward Asia.  And smaller Asian nations, watching China literally construct territory in the South China Sea, would like America to swivel their way.  But the increasing chaos of the Middle East keeps sucking the President into its vortex.  He dreams of detente with Iran, seemingly unaware that making nice nice with the ayatollahs will probably increase the desire of Saudi and Gulf State Sunnis to support Sunni insurgents in Iraq and Syria (possibly including ISIS) in order to counterbalance growing Iranian power.  A gain in stability could be met with an increase in instability.

But even as Obama recedes into the background, the Republicans can take no comfort.  They will achieve little in Washington without control of the White House.  And they're bogged down by a mosh pit full of Presidential hopefuls, none of whom have captivated the electorate.  Perhaps they, too, are fading into irrelevance.

Economic Consequences of the Mid-Term Elections

The economic consequences of yesterday's mid-term elections will be zero.  In order to boost the economy, the federal government would have to raise taxes, cut spending or both.  Even though President Obama now faces a majority Republican Senate as well as House, he won't agree to major tax cuts and the Republicans won't agree to major increases in spending.  So the fiscal impact of the mid-term elections will be effectively zero.  With the federal deficit lower than the historical average of 3% of GDP, there's room for fiscal stimulus but no political impetus for it.

Modest spending boosts may come from an increased military role for the U.S. in the Middle East.  Trying to suppress ISIS is becoming a game of whack-a-mole.  And American air power may have to target an al-Qaeda affiliate called the al Nusra front as well.  But such mission creep will be constrained as there is no public support for a resumption of ground warfare by U.S. troops.  The defense budget won't provide major stimulus.

Monetary policy is the only real game in town, and central bankers are the croupiers.  The Fed has just ended quantitative easing in the face of 3% plus growth by the economy, but there's nothing that stands in its way if it wants to fire up the monetary printing press again.  Just the push of a few computer keys, and the QE program is up and running again.  The Japanese central bank has recently placed a lot of QE chips on the table, putting a punch bowl on the table even as the Fed takes one away. 

The newly empowered Republicans in the Senate will probably increase pressure on the Fed to step back from accommodation.  That would be a fool's errand, as there is nothing the Republicans could actually do over the next two years to substitute for the loss of Fed accommodation.  If Republican pressure on the Fed slows the economy to stall speed, look for smashing Democratic victories in the 2016 Presidential and Congressional elections.

Has the Supreme Court Entrenched the Two Parties?

The upcoming mid-term elections, in which Republican gains are strongly anticipated, are much more about anger than beliefs.  Voters are inclined to throw the bums out (which in some cases may mean Republicans instead of Democrats).  They are anti-incumbent and only incidentally sometimes in favor of the challenger. 

This would seem the ideal environment to launch a third political party.  The Republicans and Democrats have become increasingly insular--from each other, and especially from the middle of the electorate.  The strong showing by Independent Greg Orman in the Kansas senatorial race illustrates the willingness of voters to consider candidates from outside the box. 

But Orman, if he wins, will caucus with one party or the other.  He isn't looking to lead the charge for a third party.  Big Republican Money is flowing into campaign coffers to inflame voter anger.  Big Democratic Money is flowing in riposte.  Any attempt to create a third party would be crushed by these financial woolly mammoths. 

The Supreme Court in recent years has struck down various limits on campaign contributions, opening the way for large contributors to throw their weight around.  Even though voters may be increasingly ready for a choice other than Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, few with deep pockets would be willing to fund a third party.  The existing parties, with their gerrymandered incumbents and established infrastructure, enjoy exacerbated advantages from the Supreme Court's antipathy toward restrictions on campaign contributions.  Regardless of the mood of the electorate, the chances for a third party to take root shrink as funding for the Republicans and Democrats increases.

There are political insurgencies.  But they take place within the established parties.  The Tea Party and its sympathizers have swung the Republican Party away from its traditional power brokers.  And the election of a black man to the White House came from the most successful political insurgency in over 40 years.  But, if you're hoping to see colors other than red and blue on political maps, you'll be waiting a long time, thanks in no small part to the Supreme Court.