November Book Report: America’s First Daughter

I began reading this America’s First Daughter at the start of November, as our own electoral madness came to its unhappy conclusion.  Written by two historians, Laura Kamoie and Stephanie Dray, the novel is the story of Patsy Jefferson Randolph, the oldest daughter of Thomas Jefferson.  Crafted from letters and the very well-known history of Thomas Jefferson, this story brings Patsy to life.  Patsy lived a long and rich life and her father was at the center of it all.  A brilliant woman born into a world that valued women mostly as mothers and ornaments, she carved an important life for herself.

No story of Jefferson is complete without delving into the enmity between the Jeffersonians and the Federalists.  The story of their conflict was  a reminder that our republic has never been one to hold only thoughtful political discussions.  We’ve withstood bitter name-calling and irrational arguments before, albeit without 24 hour cable news and Twitter, two features of modern political life that don’t seem to be helping us.

Patsy’s journey in life took her from Virginia society to Philadelphia and then London in Paris.  In Paris, she received an education and was witness to her father’s politics and the start of the French Revolution.  She returned to Virginia as a young woman and married into a prominent local family.  Even then, she mostly lived in her father’s world, serving as the mistress of Monticello and as the first lady during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency.

Patsy saw many important events in our nation’s history and the novel tells them from her point of view.  An educated and intelligent women at a time when women were confined to the world of home, Patsy understood the way in which women were limited in the 18th century.  I started the novel expecting to be reading it in the triumphant moment when I saw the first woman elected to my nation’s highest office.  I finished it aware that there remains a double standard for women in the 21st century.  That modern life is not as restrictive as Patsy’s world is notable, of course, but little comfort.

Some Leaders with the Courage We Need

It’s been more than a week since Donald Trump won the Electoral College and became the president-elect.  I wake up every morning and my first thought is horror at this development.  With the exception of a seemingly conciliatory victory speech on the night of the election, the news has not been very hopeful.  A steady parade of Republican lobbyists have joined the chaotic and unprepared transition team, now headed by a virulently anti-gay Mike Pence, soon to be our nation’s vice-president.  The potential Supreme Court judges are unthinkably awful.  The choice of misogynist white nationalist Stephen Bannon as a lead presidential advisor is horrifying.  The steady-presence of Trump’s three spoiled and smug children acting as advisors is sickening.

I could go on but I won’t.

What we need is some good news.  In the midst of this mess, we do have leaders and thinkers who will hold the line, stand up to racism and hate, and otherwise show us a better path forward.  And so I offer this list of leaders with both the courage and perseverance to see us through the coming Trump Administration.

These folks are Democrats; my list isn't inclusive.  I'll have a Republican list out soon.  In the meantime, these people make me hopeful about the future.  

In the Senate:

Cory Booker of New Jersey

Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts

Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Kamala Harris of California(newly-elected)

Chris Murphy of Connecticut

Kirsten Gillibrand of New York

Charles Schumer of New York

Tim Kaine of Virginia

Tammy Duckworth of Illinois (newly-elected)

Richard Durbin of Illinois

Sherrod Brown of Ohio
Jeff Merkely of Oregon
Tom Carper of Delaware
Ron Wyden of Oregon
Mazie Hirono of Hawaii
Debbie Stabenow of Michigan
Chris Van Hollen of Maryland (newly-elected)

In the House of Representatives:

John Lewis of Georgia

Elijah Cummings of Maryland

Nancy Pelosi of California

Adam Schiff of California

Frank Pallone of New Jersey
Mike Honda of California

Some impressive Democratic governors:

Jerry Brown - California

Andrew Cuomo - New York

John Hickenlooper - Colorado

John Wisniewski, candidate for Governor in New Jersey

A few mayors not taking any nonsense:

Rahm Emanuel in Chicago

Eric Garcetti in LA

Bill de Blasio - NYC

This is by no means an exhaustive list; it is a nice place to turn if you need hope.  Follow these folks on Twitter; pay attention when they give interviews.  Check out their websites.  Support them.  Know that they have courage and both the ability and willingness to lead us in a better direction, one based in inclusive diversity.  Know also that they will stand up to racism, sexism, xenophobia, and anti-GLBT policies.  That’s gonna matter moving forward.  Liberals, we aren’t alone; not by a long shot.

Living in Hope

In preparation for a post-election essay celebrating the outcome, I had collected an assortment of unflattering snippets and thoughts about Donald Trump.  I expected him to lose the election and these notions were going to help me to explain (and celebrate!) his defeat.  Obviously, events on the ground eclipsed my plans.

At first, I was at a loss to explain the election outcome.  As a political scientist who has been studying elections for the last 30 years, this was rather startling to me.  Politics is something that always I understand.  To be unsure of what had happened and especially why it had happened contributed to my anxiety about the outcome of the election.  On Friday, in a frustrated response to the panic I was reading on-line, I pointed out on Twitter that we still have a Constitution that protects our rights and enshrines the notion of three branches of government obligated to check and balance one another.  I was harassed by some folks who advised me to study the world and to understand constitutions.  They feel that ours is under attack. Those accusations didn’t make me angry as much as  they reminded me how fear fuels anger, resentment, and ignorance.  It also reinforced my sense of how scared Donald Trump makes people.

I am concerned about Donald Trump.  But I refuse to live in fear.

I do understand constitutions and their functions.  I know them well, having spent a nearly thirty year career learning and teaching about constitutions.  I know when constitutional democracies (real ones, not the pretend democracies set up by authoritarian states) are at risk.

We are not in that circumstance.

The United States has a robust constitution and a system built on rule of law.  It’s neither perfect nor impenetrable.  But it has endured for more than 200 years and in that time has always been used to expand rights.  The 2016 election of Donald Trump is unsettling.  But it is not evidence that the Constitution has unravelled.  As Americans, we should always be careful and vigilant to ensure that constitutional protections of our individual liberty endure.  That is the case no matter who wins elections.  The 2016 election outcome finds me vigilant and active.  But I am not in a panic.  It is up to every one of us to ensure that a risk to our constitutionally-protected liberty never materializes.

In the 2016 election, I listened to Donald Trump and I heard racism, bigotry, misogyny, and hate wrapped in an alarming level of ignorance.  I cast a ballot against those notions.

Many of my fellow voters (though not all or even most of them…..Hillary won the popular vote), heard the same Donald Trump that I heard.  I expect that some Trump voters heard the same ideas I heard, embraced them, and voted for the racism and bigotry.  But some of them heard the same Donald Trump that I heard and drew different conclusions.  I disagree with both set of the Trump voters.  But they are my fellow citizens and it is my obligation to understand them.

I do not expect Donald Trump, his policies, and his advisors to succeed in growing our economy or fixing our income inequality.  I reject his approach to immigration,  I am fearful of the damage his ideas would cause.   New Yorker writer Jelani Cobb repeated a Mark Twain quote that seems timely right now, “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”  I was a patriot on Tuesday when I thought Hillary would win. I am a patriot today, though she lost the election.

Being a patriot means that I will remind myself of the privileges I have experienced in life and the obligations that they engender.   As a patriot, I will stand for the constitutional protections that are dear to us all.  I will be vigilant and stand up to racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and efforts to marginalize disabled people.   I will be an ally and a safe place for those who are afraid.  I will be brave in the face of ignorance, fear, and hate.  I will continue to speak my mind.  I will be careful and kind.  I will love my fellow citizens despite their frailties.  I will work tirelessly for the kind of policies I want our nation to adopt.

I refuse to live in fear.

I will live in hope.

Dogwood Thursday: November 10

Like everyone I know, the events of election day have found me stunned and upset.  I’d say that I’m angry, but that emotion doesn’t really plumb the depths of my disappointment and anxiety about Tuesday’s outcome.  Like so many other people, I was convinced that Hillary would win on Tuesday.  As the electoral college map began to fill with support for Donald Trump, I spent at least a few hours simply not believing what I was seeing.  It wasn’t just that Hillary was losing (even typing that word hurts), it’s that she was losing to Donald Trump.  He’s hateful, ignorant, unprepared, undeserving…there is no end to the ways this man is not suited for the responsibilities of the presidency.  To watch a woman candidate whom I admire and respect lose to Donald Trump. It’s painful.  And, as Hillary said on Wednesday, it’s going to hurt for a while.

On Wednesday, having stayed up half the night to watch the disaster unfold, T and I headed to work and then numbly texted one another.  At one point she noted that the squirrels didn’t look any different.  I thought of that this morning as I stepped outside to make a picture of the dogwood tree.

All the leaves are now gone, so it looks different than last week.  But the trunk stands sturdy and the empty branches are ready for winter.  There’s a strength in that kind of endurance.  Like the squirrels, the dogwood is doing what needs to be done.  

I think there’s a lesson in that for me.  I can’t change the fact that Donald Trump is the president-elect.  But winning the electoral college as he did doesn’t change the fact that Hillary won the popular vote.   As of this writing, she has the edge by more than 330,000 votes.  It’s not going to make a difference about who is in power, but it makes a difference to me.  More of us voted for unity and being stronger together than the reverse. That’s a glimmer of hope in a very grey landscape.

But it is hope; sturdy, solid, I’ll be-here-tomorrow hope.  I always say that I live in hope and I mean it.  And should hope prove elusive, the dogwood is just outside the window, reminding me that sturdy hope trumps hate.

For Hope, History, and Hillary

I’ve repeated this story so many times before, that you’d think I could let it go, but I have waited a long time for this day and I am so excited about the history unfolding  before us on this day.  I was 16 years old in 1984 when Geraldine Ferraro was nominated as a vice presidential candidate.  That year, my mother told me, “You’ll see a women in the White House by the time you are 40.”

I turned 49 just a few days ago.

This morning I stood in line with my ballot and then I voted for a woman presidential candidate.  I am excited to send her to the White House.  

I took my 16 year old son into the voting booth with me and we cast that ballot together.  I’ve waited a long time to make this vote and the moment was so powerful and so full.  It’s made better by the fact that we made history in 2008 when we selected Barack Obama as president.  I was proud of my nation in 2008; I am just as proud now.  To think that we will have a swath of American presidents who broke barriers, who created an inclusive kind of hope……well that is some heady business.

This is America when it has the potential to be both good and great.  We are showing our children what it looks like when a diverse and tolerant nation rises to the challenges of the modern world.  When I was 16, I imagined that this vote would feel especially rich if I had a daughter.  But today I am reminded that it is our daughters and our sons who benefit from this historic change.  My son was 8 years old when Barack Obama was elected president; at 16 he will see the first woman enter the White House as president.  His world has been shaped by the notion that we are better and stronger because of our diversity.    That is the kind of greatness in which I believe.

We are with her.  I won’t go to bed tonight until I know that the rest of the nation is with us.

Counting the Days

The other night, I set out to replenish the cotton squares in my medicine cabinet.  I use one each night to remove my makeup.  Typically, I buy a large bag and then take a dozen or so from the bag and place them in the cabinet for my daily use.  In this way, I keep track of how many I’ve used and, as the supply wanes, make a note to add replacements to my Target shopping list.

On Monday, when I grabbed a new stack of squares I had the idle thought that when these squares were gone, the election would be over, and Donald Trump would no longer be in my daily mental landscape.  

The realization was both thrilling and telling.  Thrilling,, because I long ago grew weary of this man and his hateful, ignorant, and incendiary rhetoric.  To think that he will soon be gone from my daily world is exciting.  And telling, because I had not realized how much his presence in my personal newsfeed had taken its toll on my heart and soul.

Eleven years ago, I began to take note of the passage of time by marking the shrinking piles of things I used in my daily life: cotton squares, dryer sheets, coffee filters…..all were small markers as I looked for time to pass and ease the pain of my broken heart.   It started in a peculiar fashion, in July of 2066, just a few weeks after JT’s other mother had left our family, when I was struggling mightily with an engulfing sadness.  One evening, I used the last coffee filter to set up the coffee pot for my morning coffee and I realized we’d bought those filters together.  Now I would buy filters on my own.  That summer found me marking all the things I would now take care of on my own.  I looked to these mundane items for the healing that the passage of time would provide.  When I’ve run through these 160 dryer sheets, I’d think, it will hurt less.  When these 250 coffee filters have gone, I’d hope, this break up won’t be my first thought each morning when I come awake.

The odd little remedy was a comfort.  Within a year, I was better.  As time marched on, the heartache was less acute.  Eventually, the wound healed.  

Counting out 3 dozen cotton squares and then realizing that when they were gone, the pain that is Donald Trump will have been defeated was surprising.  I hadn’t realized the toll that this election had taken on my subconscious.  But it has taken a toll.  The spite, the ignorance about our democracy, the dismissive attitude toward women, the vindictive rhetoric, the demonizing of decent people, and the hateful language: I am done with it all.  

I want hope.  I want the promise of a nation that works together and moves forward in unity.  I want an appeal to our better angels.  I want to go through my day and neither hear nor read of Donald Trump.

On Monday, when I counted out the cotton squares, it was 22 days until November 8.  As of today, it is 20 days.  We can do this, America.  We can hold on.

Real Life Conversations with T: Presidential Politics edition

The backstory: T pays attention to the news but not in that 24-hour-news sort of way and thus I often have the pleasure of sharing the latest story about Donald Trump’s shenanigans, as was the case this morning when I informed her about the Washington Post's story about the Access Hollywood B-roll footage of Trump acting like a Neanderthal toward women.

S:  So basically, he confirmed what we’ve always known: he’s a sexist pig.

T: Again, I say, I want a president who is smarter than me.

Let us note for the official record that Donald Trump does not meet this test.  Women of America, let’s hit the ballot box and show Mr. Trump to the door.

Real Life Conversations at School: Politics edition

The backstory:  I have a collection of political buttons dating back to the 1940s and they hang in my office.  Each year, I pull out a few to display on my bulletin board.  I also add current buttons to the collection and recently, some 2016 Hillary Clinton buttons were added to the bulletin board.  Looking at the board, my colleague S had some questions.

S:  Is the JFK button valuable?

Me:  Yes, though my most valuable button is “Pretty Girls for Nixon.”  

(oh, culture wars)

Me:  I won’t buy any Trump buttons, so I’m using Goldwater as a stand-in.

S:  Goldwater?  I was 10 when Goldwater ran and he was not popular in my house.  But in comparison to Trump, Goldwater is a delight.

I can’t argue with that.

I’m with Her

In 2007, Representative Nancy Pelosi was elected to the position of Speaker of the House, the first woman to serve in that capacity.  That year’s State of the Union address found me watching the first woman to sit behind the president at that address.  It was a heady moment for me, a 39 year old woman who had been waiting her whole life for the nation to fulfill its promise that equality included girls and women.  I watched Pelosi that night and felt like a few panes of the glass ceiling were ready to be shattered.

That year, I used Newsweek magazine to teach current events in my American government class.  The story that followed that State of the Union described the speech and the political leaders who were there.  It was required reading for my students as we prepared to discuss the agendas proposed by Republican and Democratic leaders.  Newsweek devoted an entire paragraph to a description of Nancy Pelosi’s appearance, right down to the color of her hair and her stylish shoes.  The appearance of the men in that room didn’t merit a mention.  For the men, the story talked about ideas.  For the one history-making woman in the room, it was the cut of her suit that mattered the most.  

I was furious and disappointed in equal measure.  How could I teach the young men and women in my classroom that it was ideas that mattered when it was clear that women’s ideas took a backseat to their hairstyles?   It was a very painful reminder that women and girls still had a long, long way to go.

Last night, 16 year-old-me watched side-by-side with my 16 year old son as a smart and accomplished woman accepted the nomination of her party to be our nation’s president.  She did it on her terms, embracing her identity as a mother and a woman and treating both as the superpowers they are.  

I am 48 years old and I have waited many years for this day.  I was excited about the moment but it wasn’t until Hillary Clinton settled into her speech last night that I realized how powerful it would feel to watch a woman in this position.  I cried for most of the speech; I am that woman who wears her emotions on her sleeve.  I cried because I am weary of the ways that women are marginalized for their accomplishments; held to a standard that is higher than men and always expected to do more for less.  There is a narrow path for women in authority; it’s the unspoken rules that are the most restrictive.  Hillary’s candidacy will challenge the unspoken rules and it’s about time we acknowledge that fact.  Last night, I shed some tears of pride and relief in equal measure.   I will live on political pins and needles until November but you can bet that when our sons and daughters wake up in a nation where, as Hillary said, “a barrier has fallen and cleared the way for everyone,” I will watch with my heart in my throat and shed a few more tears.

I am proudly with Hillary.  America, let’s do this thing.

Grand Old Shouting Match

The first election to which I paid close attention was in 1984.  That year, I was 16 year old and excited at the prospect that the first woman might be elected Vice President.  I worked for the campaign that fall; I believed in the ideas of Walter Mondale as much as I was excited to have a woman on the ticket.  On election day, I was crushed when the returns poured in and Ronald Reagan won a landslide re-election.  My dad likes to joke that only I and Walter Mondale thought he would win that year and that even Mondale knew better in his heart of hearts.  That’s probably true.  But even though my candidate lost, I woke up the next morning still determined to believe in something greater than myself.

I was struck by this as I caught shards of the first day of the GOP convention on Monday night.  For the most part, it was a spectacle of disorder and attacks on Hillary Clinton, with nothing in the form of pro-active ideas or policies.  We know that the Republican party wants to win the election and control the Congress.  But we don’t know what they will do if they prevail.  They have a quasi-leader; but they lack leadership.  

I’ve cast many presidential election ballots since 1984.  I’ve always been blessed to truly believe in the candidate for whom I voted.  I’ve never cast a hold-your-nose or better-than-the-alternative presidential vote.  I’ll happily vote for Hillary Clinton this year.  She’s not perfect; no candidate meets that test.  She is experienced, smart, passionate about the needs of children, and level-headed.  As president, she will serve this nation well.  I know this because that’s what she has done for the last thirty years.  She wants to lead and she knows how and why she will do it.  I’ll take that over invective and accusations any day.

Still Living in Hope

This morning, I heard an NPR story about the Republican National Convention that opens today.  The interview featured Republicans in various stages of enthusiasm about their presidential candidate.  But most of them, like Paul Ryan, can’t seem to bring themselves to speak affirmatively of Donald Trump.  Instead, they say that they prefer him to Hillary Clinton.  Though I couldn’t disagree more, I feel sorry for these voters.  For all of my life, I’ve been blessed to cast presidential votes for candidates whom I actually believe in.  I’m not naive about politics or our American history, but I believe in the promise that lies at the heart of our Constitution.  That promise is more important than ever this summer, even as it it seems more elusive than I’d like. 

In a nation that feels fragile and tense as a result of gun violence at the hands of the state and our fellow citizens,  it seems especially risky to open a convention built around the idea that we should elect Donald Trump to become our next president.  The man is a thoughtless spectacle.  His rhetoric has never seemed unifying or inspiring, two things this nation badly needs right now.  He seems as self-absorbed as a middle schooler, a comparison that is gravely unfair to middle schoolers.  I won’t watch the nightly speeches at the convention, though I will read about it and listen to to much of the NPR coverage.   I’m hoping that I won’t recoil in horror as the speeches unfold, but that seems an over-optimistic stretch.

When it comes to most things in life, I live in hope.  Politics is no exception.  That attitude has nearly always worked out for me, though I suspect that the GOP convention is looking to test my patience on that front.

People of Good Will

I am a card-carrying Democrat and have been one since before I could vote.  The party represents my view of the political world because I am a liberal and share those values. I value political and social equality and work to move our nation toward those principles.  I want universal healthcare, equal pay for equal work, a better system for taking care of our children, and schools that value our children and teach them ideas, not tests.  I want women to be in charge of their own bodies.  I want infrastructure that makes our lives better.  I want  a world whose paramount value is peace and all the thing that come with it.  These are cherished beliefs, well thought out and consistent over my 30 years as a voter.  They are why I vote Democratic.  I like to believe that in principle I would cast a ballot for a Republican.  I have never done so; but I like to think that I might could at some point.

I have this perspective because I believe that political disagreements must occur in a representative democracy like the United States.  For most of my political life I have believed that I can disagree with the opposition but still feel united with them by our common American identity.  This, of course, is the very core of a successful republic: the belief that people with different ideas and principles remain people of good will.  And if we are all people of good will; people who wish to do right by their fellow citizens, then we are more united than not.  As a united nation, we can thrive and succeed even as we disagree.

This belief has always guided my view of the political system and it has made me sanguine in the aftermath of elections when my preferred candidate did not prevail.  I’ve been voting for nearly 30 years and this perspective has never faltered.  Politics need not be a zero sum game.  If there is one thing that I have always believed, it is that people of good will can disagree - sometimes vehemently- but still come together as a single nation. 

Enter Donald Trump.  

I will confess that I never believed that his candidacy would make it this far.  But now he’s the presumptive Republican nominee for president and I find that try as I might, I no longer view this candidate and his supporters through my usual lens.  I do not believe that Donald Trump is a man of good will whose ideas and principles are carefully considered, though different from my own.  Fundamentally, I do not believe that Donald Trump is a man of good will.  I believe that he is a deeply flawed megalomaniac bent on his own satisfaction.  Worse yet, I don’t believe that his supporters are people of good will.  

I am no longer prepared to respectfully disagree and let the chips fall where they may, confident in the flexibility and good will of our republic.  I believe that Donald Trump and his supporters are a threat to the nation because they don’t understand the basic nature of our system of governance.  They demonstrate a willful ignorance wrapped in terrifying extremism.  That does not and will not  ever serve our national interest.

I came to this conclusion rather slowly, both because I expected Trump’s appeal to fade but also because I believe so strongly in my fellow citizens’ ability to see through the charlatan that is candidate Trump.  It’s one thing to disagree with the folks who have a Romney sign in their front yard.  It’s quite another to see the Trump sign or number sticker and be struck by anxiety and downright fear.

I want to believe that we are better than Donald Trump.  I need to believe that we are better than Donald Trump.  Fellow citizens, it’s in our hands. Don’t let us down.

A Reality Check for Paul Ryan

As last week’s primary results unfolded, I’ll admit that I was surprised on Tuesday evening when Ted Cruz dropped out of the race.  It felt abrupt, though I don’t know exactly why I think that.  He’d placed everything on the line in Indiana and had lost rather spectacularly.  But I assumed that Cruz would stay in it for a few more rounds of abuse.

Which is not to say that I had enthusiasm for Cruz as a candidate.  I’d never cast a ballot for him as dog catcher, let alone president, but his presence allowed me to continue the pipe dream that Donald Trump doesn’t truly have a shot at running for the White House as a major party candidate.  Then Cruz left the race; the next day, John Kasich followed and suddenly Donald F. Trump looks like the Republican nominee for president.

I can’t even.

By Thursday, some Republicans were making their peace with the fact that their primary voters have gone nuts.  While most mainstream Republicans held the line and refused to actively support Trump, some on the fringes have expressed support.  Then Speaker of the House Paul Ryan emerged to say that he’s not yet ready to endorse Trump.  Ryan’s position is that his party must stand for something and offer an affirmative policy agenda.  That’s a respectable idea.  Though I suspect that policy agenda isn’t something I will come to support, it’s at least something the nation's voters can think about and explore.  

It’s a far cry from Trump’s pledge to build a wall, torture our enemies, bring back jobs lost because of free market trade, ban Muslims, or his Friday morning suggestion that the United States simply re-structure our debts and pay cents on the dollar, as if making America great is as simple as a Chapter 13 filing.  The problem with Ryan’s policy notions is that right now such thoughts are a pipe dream; the GOP has no affirmative agenda because they have no responsible center.  Ryan’s party is fractured and angry.  Trump may have won many of the primary votes within the GOP but let’s not forget that more primary voters cast ballots for his opponents then cast ballots for him.  He’ll take a few self-congratulatory victory laps and then I expect reality to come crashing down on T-rump and the rest of his party.

Reality is that the Republican party has for years collected the support of voters for whom they were prepared to do next-to-nothing.  From the Reagan Democrats who emerged in the 1980s to the Christian conservatives who believe they represent a silent majority, the GOP has cultivated these votes with nary an effort to make a return on the voters’ investment.  Now those voters are angry and have turned to a charlatan candidate in the form of a smug, privileged millionaire who says whatever he pleases.  Your party is reaping what you’ve sown, Mr. Ryan, and it’s not just you but the nation who will have to pay for those decisions.

Thanks a lot.

Among the Hoosiers

John Kasich and Ted Cruz made a pact to leave the path clear for one another in a handful of states, including Indiana, where Kasich has held off so that Cruz could take on T-rump mano-a-mano.  So Cruz has everything on the line in the Hoosier state.

And he’s about to go down in a Texas-sized blaze of rhetorically-fueled collapse.  The T-rump Meglomaniac Train is nowhere close to shutting down and he’ll be schooling our man Ted tonight.  He’ll be doing it with the help of Hoosier favorites, former coaches Lou Holtz and Bobby Knight.  Both have endorsed T-rump in a display of stupid that is especially horrifying, given that we are looking for a national leader, not a zone defense.

T-rump will win Indiana with about 45% of the vote to Cruz’s 35% and Kasich’s 15%.  He’ll proclaim his awesomeness to anyone who will listen while the thoughtful voters of this nation throw up in their mouthes.

Over in the Democratic corner, there is some reason to believe that the demographics of Indiana favor Bernie Sanders but the polls don’t suggest it’s translating.  Expect Hillary Clinton to score the win in Indiana, with over 50% of the vote in the state.

I no longer wake up on primary day crossing my fingers that the Republican voters in these states will hand T-rump a loss that will translate to the collapse of his ego or his campaign.  That’s frustrating for me, because I actually believe in democracy.

Morning after update: Leaving aside Cruz's withdrawal from the race, the big story last night was that Sanders prevailed in Indiana's Democratic contest, with 52.5% of the vote to Clinton's 47.5%, a solid victory. The state offered demographics that helped Sanders in the form of a less racially diverse collection of Democratic voters.  Sanders prevailed among younger voters; Clinton did better with African-Americans and older whites.  Exit polls show that late-deciders broke for Sanders, casting the Clinton campaign's decision not to run ads and be a presence in Indiana to look troubling.  Clinton retains the delegate lead and the path forward for Sanders remains a challenge.  On May 10, the contest goes to West Virginia and then we head to California and New Jersey.  The roller coaster isn't over.

Primary Tuesday: Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island

On the heels of the mutual-assisted suicide plan stirred up by John Kasich and Ted Cruz, whereby they divide up the remaining states and stop campaigning against one another in order to insure that T-rump doesn’t reach his magic delegate total, T-rump is about the score some big points in today’s voting.  The Republican party primary is basically a contest between shiftless jackals and today’s lead jackal is going to be T-rump, who isn’t capable of being thoughtful or presidential, led alone gracious in victory.

T-rump will win in all four states today, with over 50% of the vote in both Connecticut and Rhode Island.  He’ll win Maryland and Pennsylvania as well, but with just a shade less than 50% of the vote, meaning that the combined Cruz-Kasich share of the vote will be greater.  This will lend itself to yet another round of delegate-math speculation, so we’ve got that going for us.

Over on the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is going to be coming up roses today.  She’ll win Connecticut, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, with over 50% of the vote in all three states.  

Bernie Sanders will score a victory in Rhode Island, but it will be be less than 2 percentage points.  The end of the road is closing in on the Sanders’ campaign after tonight, a fact that the candidate seems to understand.

Once the Democrats close ranks for Clinton, the buffoonery of the Republican campaign will be even more apparent (yes, that’s possible).  

On Wisconsin

By now you’ve have to be living under a rock to have missed out on the fact that Wisconsin primary voters are typically the sort to support the party leaders in their primary voting.  This is the responsible Midwest, after all.  But this year’s Wisconsin voter has had about enough of the nonsense that is the current GOP contest (see: responsible Midwest) and the state is expected to come in strong for Ted Cruz, as part of the state’s “anyone but Trump” sentiment.  The Cruz support is less about Cruz (he’s not exactly a moderate in the Wisconsin GOP tradition) and more an expression of the anti-Trump sentiment, an idea that has been sustained by the state’s still-popular Republican governor (and also-ran), Scott Walker.    T-rump will likely offer a terrific excuse for his unexpected loss to Lyin’ Ted and that may very well be the news of the evening.

Meanwhile, Democratic Badgers don’t wish to be left out of the unexpected news category and they are looking to come in for Bernie Sanders.  The Sanders support is likely a function of the state’s strong college student demographic, labor voters, and Sanders recent momentum, though I wouldn’t expect the victory to be overwhelming.

So let’s talk numbers.

I expect that Sanders will come up with a 3 point margin of victory, right around 51% to Clinton’s 48%.  Not exactly a burning victory, but enough to keep Sanders’ coffers full for the next few weeks as the two of them duke it out for victory in New York state on April 19.

Meanwhile, over in the party that Lincoln built (hard to believe….my condolences to Mr. Lincoln) Cruz will score a victory with 42% of the vote.  His opponents combined will be over 50%, with Kasich holding steady at 20% and Trump at 34%.  It’s notable that this is invariably the case for Republican voting this season; a sign that the party is truly balkanized.  New York voters (and their values!) are also the next step on the GOP crazy train.  

But until then, it’s your day, Wisconsin.  Pass around the cheese curds and let's see how this plays out.

T-Rump

There’s a quote about Thomas Jefferson that I have long found informative.  Over time, I’m forgotten both the source and the exact language but the general idea is something like this:  “The problem with Jefferson is that he believes the things he says about democracy.”  The idea is a response to Jefferson’s faith in the common man, which many of his philosophical peers found naive.  In fact, there wasn’t much democracy in the original American constitution.  Presidents and members of the Senate were chosen indirectly, by the Electoral College and state legislatures respectively.  There was no direct democratic input in the selection of judges.   The people did directly select members of the House of Representatives, but that’s only half of one branch out of the three that makes up the federal government.  There was more direct democratic influence in the American government than any other nation circa 1792, but it wasn’t all that much.  The founders weren’t as confident in the common man as we think.  

Jefferson did have that confidence and I’ve always found it both charming and prescient on his part.  As our nation has grown, the franchise was extended, and the voters had greater democratic influence, our citizens have mostly risen to the demands of self-government.  And make no mistake, self-government does make demands on the people.  Then along comes a presidential candidate like Donald J. Trump and my inner elitist hears the voice of Alexander Hamilton and wonders what the hell Jefferson could have been thinking.

A good friend of mine has taken to referring to Donald Trump as simply T-Rump, which has the virtue of conveying exactly what kind of jackass we’re dealing with.  I was among the many political observers who felt that the T-Rump candidacy would flame out just in time for the Republican mainstream to swoop in and select their usual candidate; someone like Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, or even Marco Rubio seemed the likely outcome.  None of those candidates were pleasing to me, largely because their policy views don’t mesh with mine.  But they were at least leaders grounded in ideas.

T-Rump is a whole other kind of animal.  His demonstrated understanding of the economic and political system is virtually nonexistent; his life of privilege has enabled him to believe that working hard is all it takes to enjoy success in America.  His ideas about women are horrifying.  I actually do think that he cares for his fellow citizens, but only to the extant that they worship him in return.  That isn’t leadership, it’s the stroking of a helium-filled ego.  Moreover, it’s dangerous in a nation that requires self-governance.  Democracy in a republic of our size and diversity requires compromise and consideration of alternatives in the form of well thought-out ideas.  That’s not easy and it can be derailed if one side opts for a win at all costs mentality, as the Republican party has chosen for the last dozen years.   They are now reaping the consequences of that brand of leadership in the form of candidate T-Rump, who is stirring up 30% of Republican voters in a frenzy of incoherent demands that cannot possibly be met.

The rest of us —— the 70% of Republicans who don’t support T-Rump and the 100% of Democrats staring on in horror, will be left to sort out the challenge of self-government.  And here it’s worth reminding Republicans what Jefferson knew: real leadership requires the voicing of objections in a thoughtful and coherent fashion and then moving forward to find common ground.  It means taking the risk that you will lose power but retain principle, because you said what needs to be said for the good of the republic.  It means understanding that America is only as great as its ability to work together and compromise.

A March 15 Post Mortem

In a phrase that I don’t expect I’ll need to write ever again, I must note that I had too much confidence in Ted Cruz heading in to yesterday’s voting.  I thought that he would take both both Illinois and Missouri in the primary contests.  Missouri remains too close to call, with a dead heat between Cruz and Trump.  But Cruz lost Illinois.  Though Trump won the state, Cruz did better in North Carolina, which I didn’t quite expect.

It’s notable that in every Republican primary that Donald Trump won yesterday, the not-Trump vote did better than Trump.  Trump earned 46% of the vote in Florida; his opponents totaled 51%.  In Illinois, Trump’s 39% was eclipsed by the 59% share of the vote that Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio earned.  Missouri hasn’t yet called the race; Cruz and Trump both came it at 41%.  Once the share of the vote collected by Rubio and Kasich is factored in, the not-Trump total is 57%.  In North Carolina, the not-Trump tally was 58%.

In all fairness, Ohio shows a similar breakdown.  John Kasich earned 47% of the vote in this state, where he is the incumbent governor.  The not-Kasich total is 52%; similar to the opponent breakdown in Florida.  My point, and I do have one, is that there is a path forward for the Republican party establishment leaders to take command of this process.  More important, the Republican party must now do this if they wish to be viable moving forward.

The alternative is a stark misery: Trump is the nominee and Republican candidates down ballot must contend with the inevitable question: do you support Donald Trump?  Both yes and no answers to this question are damning in their own peculiar way.  Setting aside the fact that the GOP’s own actions landed them in this mess, the party must now lead.  In his Tuesday night victory speech, Trump noted that he and his party are now the biggest story in the world.  I fear that’s true, but not because the rest of the world is looking to emulate America.   It’s true because the self-destruction we are courting is so colossal.  But the party of Lincoln still has time to save itself.  In a fitting metaphor for the month of March, the ball is in your court, GOP.

A Primary, A Caucus, Oh My: South Carolina and Nevada Predictions

The American primary election schedule is a strange and mysterious beast with nearly no rationale and plenty of hubris.  Though various presidential primaries have been in existence since the early 20th century, they didn’t carry a great deal of influence until the 1960s, when both the Democratic and Republican party began to flirt with selecting their presidential candidates via primary elections instead of nominating conventions.

When that transition developed, New Hampshire’s primary was first on the calendar and became important.  The state held onto its first-in-the-nation status by making it a state constitutional requirement and strong-arming the national parties to agree to the arrangement.  Iowa had a caucus scheduled just before the New Hampshire primary but because it was a caucus (and, let’s face it, in Iowa), it was rather an also-ran until 1976 when a candidate named Jimmy Carter used his showing in the Iowa Caucus to demonstrate electoral viability that might translate to the national stage.  

Since then, the rest of us have been forced to believe that Iowa and New Hampshire are somehow worthy of getting a first crack at the candidates.  Though neither of these contests is famous for actually picking the eventual nominee, they typically serve to winnow the list of potential nominees.  This kind of influence is sought by other states, of course.

Enter South Carolina and Nevada, states that also lay claim to being useful for early contests.

In the case of South Carolina, a southern state, an early primary here does give us a glimpse about how candidates will fare in Dixie, which can still be called the solid South.  That’s more important for Republicans than Democrats, and South Carolina has thus wedged its way into the early primary calendar.

Nevada is a relatively new addition to the early voting race and the state’s contest is a caucus.  As a Western state, Nevada technically might show candidate viability in this region of the country.  In 2008, candidate Barack Obama’s strong showing in the Nevada contest gave the contest greater credibility and thus visibility.  Nevada is a state with a population whose demographics shift significantly from year to year, including a large and growing assortment of Latino and African-American voters, demographic groups that are important to the national viability of the Democratic party.  For the Republicans, Nevada is not expected to be a state that is part of whatever national victory the party pieces together in November, but its relative diversity is interesting for the national GOP, as they contemplate their future in an increasingly diverse nation.

In 2016, the national party’s primary calendars are not fully coordinated so today’s contests include a Republican primary vote in South Carolina and a Democratic Caucus vote in Nevada.  It’s peculiar and will rather divide our attention today.

Still reading?  It’s time for the heart of the matter: predictions.

Let’s start with Nevada’s Democratic caucus contest.  Even on a Saturday, a caucus is still a low turn-out event, especially for the party most attractive to working class Nevadans, as the Democratic party is.  Here, organizational groundwork is essential and that means the advantage goes to Hillary Clinton, who should win the contest by 4-5 percentage points.

The Republican contest in South Carolina will feature a truckload of evangelical voters and, like New Hampshire, should winnow the number of contestants.  In theory, evangelical voters should be looking to Ted Cruz as their savior but Donald Trump is funneling a lot of evangelical voters his way, perhaps a sign that Trump’s brand of discontentment populism is more salient to these voters than religion.  That possibility is worth exploring down the line, especially if Trump’s appeal in Southern contests holds firm.  Marco Rubio has the support of South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley; Rubio is increasingly the establishment’s candidate, a designation that has been important in previous years but doesn’t seem to hold the same weight in 2016 Republican circles.

So…how does this messy contest unfold?

Let’s dispense with the easy calls first.  John Kasich’s number two showing in New Hampshire won’t matter in the Palmetto state and he’ll finish fifth.  Fourth place will go to Jeb Bush.  Both of them will probably stay alive for the March 1st Super Tuesday contest, with high single digit-low double digit showings.  Former voter darling Ben Carson is going to come in sixth, with numbers in the low single digits.  His campaign is done.  

That leaves the top three finishers.

God save us, but it’s looking like Donald Trump will win in South Carolina.  If he’s north of 35%, then we need to start believing that Trump is going to be around for a while and might actually score himself the Republican nomination or foster a battle royale brokered convention.  I believe Trump will be north of 30% but just below 35% in South Carolina; still a cause for concern if you are the national Republican party.

I am not in that party; moreover I do not think that Trump can win a general election.  I do think he is actively bad for the Republican party; not to mention the republic.  I no longer find him the least bit amusing.  But this post is already way too long, so we’ll explore that rich vein later.

I will call second place for Marco Rubio by just a smidge over the persistently unlikeable Ted Cruz, with the two of them in the mid-20s.  The unpleasant trio of Trump, Rubio, and Cruz will then head into super-Tuesday with the gloves off.

Yuck.

Bring on the Predictions: We’re in the Granite State

My Iowa assessment worked out pretty well and so I should be coming into New Hampshire feeling confident, or at least more confident than some of the candidates (looking at you, Governor Big Mouth).  Alas, I think there is is a lot of uncertainty in the Granite State.  The Democratic contest is an easy call; the state’s blue voters will feel the Bern and Senator Sanders will walk away from New Hampshire with a victory just north of 15 percentage points over Hillary Clinton.

For the Republicans, the outcome is less clear.  Even accounting for the dropouts of Huckabee, Paul, and Santorum, there are still a whole lot of choices available to New Hampshire Republican voters, a group who are less religious and more moderate than Iowa Republicans.  New Hampshire primary voters are traditionally last-minute deciders and most polls show that even as we head into election day, 30% of them remain undecided.  The same New Hampshire polls show that Trump is holding his lead, though it’s shrunk since Iowa.  I think that Trump will hold on among New Hampshire voters, but it won’t be a 20 point victory.  He’ll win first by 5-7 points, though I won’t be surprised if the win is more narrow or even if Trump comes in second.

A Trump victory clears the way for Kasich in second place, and I think that’s where he will land, by a few points anyway.  

Conventional wisdom is that Rubio’s Saturday debate disaster won’t cost him much but I think it will cost him second place,  and he’ll slot in third, but just barely behind Kasich.  Bush and Cruz will be next, both in the low double digits, not much apart from one another.  Christie comes in sixth with the high single digits.  This may cause him to pack it up and return to New Jersey; it will surely cause the money to dry up.

Speaking of dried up, Fiorina and Carson are done as of tonight.  The chance that they hold on to get South Carolina seems pretty slim given the fact that both are out of cash.

That’s how I think it will shape up.  What you got, New Hampshire?