The Vice President Question

Why write about Vice Presidential nominee right now?  First, it is quite often a critical factor in the final ballot in November.  Some examples I would suggest include Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, Al Gore, and Mike Pence, each who had a crucial role for significant niches of voters.  Second, although it is premature to make a public announcement it is always timely to look out for logical possibilities and
work towards them while at the same time maneuvering for one's own benefit.

Sarah Palin is a lesson by herself.  Loved by many, but she turned off enough people who were concerned that John McCain could die and leave the presidency to her scatterbrain that it affected the election.  The other three all added something positive to the package, but I would like to draw attention to Mike Pence.  Paul Manafort saw a weakness in Trump that he rightly thought could be rectified with a strong evangelical.  Trump has done a lot to suck up to evangelicals, but many feel more assured that one of their own would help pursue their agenda.

The field is narrowing, but it seems likely it will be several weeks before the Democrats nominate a presidential candidate and many will hang on due to hope or a feeling of obligation or pride.   They  have unfortunately also been narrowing the diversity of their candidates.  The Democrats have built much of their strength on diversity and need to get a turnout. to seize power.  Black women are supposedly their most reliable voters.  Of course policies are critical, but getting the vote out is decisive.

The question is probably being negotiated right now.  Candidates are trying to figure out if they can make a deal to eliminate a competitor or give up the battle and try to get the vice presidential nod.  And naturally each is assessing possible running mates to maximize their chances of winning the presidency.  They have to be careful not to offend someone they might later pair up with.  It is a delicate balance because they also have to attack rivals.

There are a limited number of possibilities for the top of the ticket and each one has their own needs.  White man, older, younger, gay, white women, Asian, billionaires, moderates, democratic socialist.

Comparing policies is useful and many seem ideal.  Realistically they will run into resistance from voters (in the form of polls, protests, etc), the Republicans, their own party plus businesses (with logical arguments or corruption).  And it depends on how much power the voters give them on November 3rd, 2020.

My favorite candidate is still Kamala Harris, not so much for diversity or even policies, but her style.  She demonstrated very well on congressional hearings that she is prepared and is good at sequencing questions.  Understands root causes.  I do like the way she handles questions.  She has appeal to blacks, Asians and women.  She would do well in debates and give a practical balance to a ticket with almost any presidential candidate.

Another favorite candidate is Cory Booker.  Well liked, but likely the assumption another black man would not likely beat Trump.  He is well liked and even regarded.  However he would boost any non black nominee with a prime audience for the Democrats. 

Still on the minority client Julian Castro has positioned himself well by endorsing Elizabeth Warren and pulling over his Hispanic endorsers.  He would be a good match for others.  He may have squandered chances with other candidates, but depending on circumstances he could be what gives the Democrats enough credit with Hispanics to win the election.

Jay Inslee would prove the seriousness of climate crisis soldier.  He might work best with a woman or minority presidential nominee.  Governors carry executive experience.

Andrew Yang is not likely to get the top position, but has one of the best ideas which I see is inevitable.  Future jobs are threatened by automation and artificial intelligence  I am not sure that he would attract enough minority voters, but he would attract the youth vote and intellectuals.  He is the most future oriented of the candidates.

Overlooked another significant candidate, Deval Patrick who since dropped out.  He certainly is worthy as a former governor with a good record.   From where I view the contest he is too far behind, however that could change fairly quickly.  As the last African American in the race it would take only a few good breaks and he could win it all.  Or he could make himself a logical Vice President nominee.  His Governor experience would give executive credibility.

I am reluctant to favor the two billionaires, although they both have merits.  They will be seen as protectors of Wall Street.  Inevitably Wall Street money will be part of the equation, but the Democrats should project concern for the masses, not the wealthy.

Are there are others besides rejected candidates.  Stacey Adams  is well regarded and working successfully on voter registration, an obstacle that she has identified.   Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is young, articulate and atrracting attention.  She would be risky for Sanders for the socialism angle, but age counter balances Sharod Brown  projects experience and is a very good talker.  Beto O'Rourke has appeal for Texas which would be a big win for the Democrats plus he also has appeal for Hispanics.

Among the remaining candidates:  Elizabeth Warren fits the bill as a progressive (consumer protection) woman, but would not be suitable should Bernie Sanders win as it will put too much emphasis on socialism which we know will be ignorantly used against them.  On the other hand she might well be good for a male moderate as a reassuring balance. 

Pete Buttigieg has a realistic shot at the top job and has earned a lot of respect and name recognition. As a moderate, gay, veteran, and very articulate, young liked by intellectuals he could balance any of the older candidates or a woman.

Amy Klubochar, after New Hampshire seems more viable for the top as she is moderate, articulate, mid westerner female with a never losing record.  She has also improved her leverage for Vice President.  A moderate woman she might be a good pairing for a progressive male (Sanders) or a newcomer (Pete Buttigieg.  Two women would be risky.

Joe Biden could improve in more favorable states, but it is an uphill battle.   He might not be ideal, as already been Vice President.  It would be weird if asked Barrack Obama, but I think Barrack should be offered Supreme Court position

Is there an advantage to publicly announcing a VP choice in advance?  Risky?   Yes, but  the candidate needs to assure primary voters that they recognize the need to represent everyone.  Possibly near the end of the process.  Vetting process takes time.  A handicap Democrats will endure is that while the Republicans are settled on Trump who has already long been on the campaign trail, they have to wait until the presidential candidate is decided.  The Vice Presidential candidate also has potential to create attention.   The presidential candidate has to be comfortable with the running mate.

Geography should only be a minor consideration, but a candidate has to represent everyone.

After the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries trends will develop and decisions will have to be made.  Some are dropping out and with the bandwagon effect it seems like a three person race with possibly two outsiders and perhaps Mike Bloomberg.  Bloomberg seems less likely as a Vice President although with his money if he wanted it it might happen.

THE IOWA CAUCUS

These are the views of an outsider, not even American.  Definitely not an expert on caucus, but find it interesting and this particular one important.

The mess reflects poorly on Democrat organization.  Republicans are jumping on it (deflecting from the impeachment "trial."  As I try to wrap up this post Thursday, Feb 6, 2020 at 1:10 pm there is 97% of district reports in. 

The Iowa caucus is critical, but maybe not crucial on the path to the presidency.  Mike Bloomberg skipped it, but has spent massive amounts on advertising that is starting to have an impact.  Tension between progressive and moderate with each wing having more than one candidate.  At some point voters will have to gang their votes together for their wing and at the end some people will have to accept someone from the other wing.  There are two women left who have a realistic shot, one from each wing and it is possible either one could be a vice president, if not go to the top.

First the idea of a caucus appeals to me.  In the final process it is necessary to reach 50% +1 to be declared the winning candidate and obviously before that it is necessary to sort through a variety of preferences.  I bet a lot of 3rd party voters in 2016 wish they had a chance to vote again.  Small states do give lesser known candidates a chance to be better known.  I prefer the opinion of voters who have a chance for one on one conversations than media giants.  Jimmy Carter, Barrack Obama and Pete Buttigieg proved to people on a one on one basis they deserve a bigger audience. Voters are pulled in different directions,  but can work towards consensus that gains more acceptance.

Public voting can be intimidating with your neighbors, friends, etc maybe differing in opinion.  Transparency is at a premium as at one level those participating know how many voted and for whom.  A problem is the time required which has to affect workers and parents.   This year satellite locations including Paris, France, Arizona and Florida allowed those who travel in the winter, mostly retired people to vote.  This means the voting is slanted towards older people. 

Jimmy Carter was relatively unknown on a national scale when he announced his presidential candidacy in late 1974 there were over 10 others with some waiting to announce.  With the low number of delegates to be won, none of them took Iowa as seriously as Carter.  He knocked on doors, left notes, followed up, but his goal was to get national media coverage.  Tim Kraft was hired to organize small committees across the state and encouraged small donations.  His campaign had a policy of carefully budgeting.  With his wife he was able to lure media to many of his events and made efforts to attract national media that yielded positive results.  He won the caucus and with the media attention he gained momentum that carried him all the way.

Since then any serious candidate has made Iowa a priority.  It has been critical for such as Barrack Obama and John Kerry and perhaps Pete Buttigieg.

As the first state will help create  momentum ideally it should be representative of America as a whole.  Problems with Iowa are that it is mostly white which probably hurts the Democrats more who need to attract a strong black turnout.  Another concern is that it is very rural.  In order to attract Iowa voters politicians make promises of state interest.

It is very tight at the top with 0.1% separating Pete Buttigeig and Bernie Sanders.  A very subtle difference, but could be magnified.  Below them are Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden.  They have all been boasting how they were going to win, but now reality starts to set in.  Fifth and still in the running is Amy Klobachur who I think actually could win it all as she has the best combination of age, experience and practicality.  Like Kamala Harris she performed very well at the Brett Kavanagh hearing.  Joe Biden's strength was supposedly that he was the one who could best beat Trump.  He has been hit by Trump with an alleged scandal in Ukraine which I recognize is way overblown, but the nepotism is real.  On a CNN town hall for the first time he talked about his stuttering and was very impressive, making him more human, but also more open and intelligent.

They all (including almost all of the non winners) would be very acceptable to me.  I especially liked Kamala Harris, but also like Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg. Both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have proved themselves smart and hard working warriors for workers and have been denigrated for socialism which somehow most Americans misunderstand.

WHO IS GOING TO BEAT TRUMP?

For many Americans getting rid of Trump is more important than policy details.  Some hope legal procedures can be used, but most think it more practical to vote him out of office.  Apparently that task seems easy enough that Democrats already have well over a dozen candidates.

The Republicans had a similar problem in the 2016 primaries with a dozen or so candidates.  From my perspective one problem was that they all felt they had to be tougher than their opponents to get attention. In the end Trump proved to be the most obnoxious.  The Democrats are each trying to be unique while trying to deal with certain litmus tests.

Trump has actually earned a lot of brutal respect (with the help of domestic and foreign enablers) that many Democrats fear him.  He did get in with less than a majority of voters and is concentrating on his base (the deployables).

Getting an early start can be helpful.  They can all expect to be scrutinized like they have never been before.  Their opponents of both parties are looking for dirt and the media is wanting to draw a crowd with sensational tidbits which could range from sex scandals to stumbling over words.  A lot of worthy people are scared off.  Others realize the effort requires a super human effort and after assessing the odds decide they are better off not running.  Sherrod Brown is one example.

Biden and Sanders are supposed to appeal to older voters who are more reliable at the ballot box.  Age is a factor.  Looking back we now realize that Ronald Reagan was in early stages of dementia and a case is being made that Trump is well advanced.  Also the younger generation has new ideas and enthusiasm.  A contrast with a 70+ Trump would be a plus.

Joe Biden should not be compared to Donald Trump's licentiousness, but that possibility has been opened.   Joe is being judged by much higher standards than Trump has been--not caught boasting or what would be considered sexual assault, but taking advantage of male privilege, something many male and even female voters can forgive, but one can imagine Trump will paint him as a hypocrite.
While Joe's career encouraged touching many now feel today such behaviour is overstepping personal space boundaries. 

Bernie Sanders my favorite from 2016 has drawn a lot of attention from progressives.  His age is against him and by declaring himself proudly as Democrat Socialist provides a bigger target.  Ironically a lot of his support comes from younger voters.  Although he has a history of involvement with civil rights he seemed too distant from blacks compared to Hilary Clinton.

My favorite candidate Elizabeth Warren is very conscious of Trump's racist attack which is really accusing her of dishonesty.  She has stood up for ordinary consumers better than others with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders.  She has spent a lot of effort developing policies but it seems voters' attention span doesn't permit too many details.  She is usually ranked in the top four or five and might do well in the debates, but might seem vulnerable to the Trump machine.

Kamala Harris makes a good impression.  Like many politicians she has a history of doing what she thought right and practical at a difficult time.  Some will think that can be used against her.  Her idea of boosting teachers fits in with what I consider a major priority.  Half black and half Indian could gain some support while at the same time be awkward, remembering that Obama was considered by many blacks to not be black enough.  It also reminds that Trump gained votes from racists.

Amy Klobuchar also made a good impression at the Kavanaugh judicial hearing   She has been criticized as being rough on her support staff.  Women are not supposed to be tough.

Beto O'Rourke even though he lost his Senate race in Texas created a lot of enthusiasm.  He is very open and expressive.  An example of changing dynamics was when established Republicans thought Beto's participation in a rock band would turn off voters it had a positive impact.

Cory Booker had made many media appearances and has a share of admirers.  Single men are frowned upon and suspected of being closet gays.  His new girl friend, activist and actress Rosario Dawson could be an asset.

Pete Buttigieg would not have been possible a decade or so ago.  A gay mayor of a fairly small city, but he has already aroused very positive attention.  His intelligence strikes many as outstanding and he has quick reaction to questions.

A lot of good people have been left out of my assessment which is more a reflection of the multitude than their individual value.  My focus is on the Trump question.  Name recognition is critical, after all most people base their decisions of what has filtered through to their attention.

The winner could turn out to be someone not mentioned.  The debates and fund raising will juggle perceptions of relative merit.  The Vice Presidential candidate could emerge from these candidates or not.  Balancing the duo ticket is considered important to the campaign.  The primary candidates in many cases will boost their popularity which can be transferred to the package.  Senators often have a national brand awareness, but Governors actually have more administrative experience.  Hopefully business experience won't be a priority.  Science awareness should be a factor.  Diversity of options could be a positive favor.

Mike Pence is an interesting case.  Apparently Paul Manafort realized that Donald's reputation would not encourage evangelicals to support him and manipulated events to get Mike Pence on as vice president.  It is a wonder that he would pair himself with such as obvious offensive candidate, but it is speculated he had his own ambitions.

The possibility of a female duo has been raised.  It could draw more female voters, but the Democrats are already strong in that area.  Aside from turning off misogynist males it could also have a negative impact with evangelical women who feel women's place is in the home.  Women like Jacinda Ardern draw admiration from both sexes  helping to create a better atmosphere.

In the last election Climate Change was seldom discussed.  Partly suspect that the media did not want to offend some of their big advertisers.  Unfortunately the danger has accelerated and it will be harder for denialists to be taken seriously.

Trump loves to cut down his opponents with a slick nickname and insults.  Everyone is vulnerable, but really he is also very vulnerable.  He seems very sensitive to criticism and is transparent in his hate for Obama who in reality was a far superior president.

I am inclined to believe almost any one of them could beat Trump.  More voters are conscious of third party dangers.  The demographics are moving favorably for the Democrats.  Trump has lost more voters than he has gained by his mercurial ways and policies. Turnout is critical.  Trump has a hard core of believers he can count on, but the more lethargic voters are more conscious they will definitely lose if they don't vote.

In addition to a concern about beating Trump, another danger the Democrats do face is a purity test.  No person is without fault.  I would like to think that intelligent caring people learn from their mistakes, but too many people are not willing to forgive.  Most of the candidates have already found it necessary to apologize for past behavior or choices made under unique circumstances.  A recent example inspired a blog on the topic:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/02/self-righteousness-and-forgiveness.html

PHOTO EXPLANATION:  Admittedly not my best, but Benjamin Franklin was a most admired American who never ran for President.  You can't run today without a lot of money and you really have to want it.  Perhaps suitable people would prefer a role like Benjamin Franklin's, after all he contributed to America's success and is recognized more than many of the subsequent presidents.

TRUMP VS SANDERS

The U.S. primaries are starting to thin out the also rans.  New Hampshire will force some voters to re-assess their choices and some investors (and donators) trying to infuence the outcome will re-calculate where their money will have the best impact.  On the surface it seems we could end up with a contest between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, although there are a lot of dynamics that could change that.

Many commentators have suggested that both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have tapped into the feelings of anger. more effectively than the other candidates.

This year there is a lot of discontent among potential voters.  The important thing is to identify the real cause.  Some have identified it as too many Mexicans, too many Muslims, too many gay rights, Obamacare, the climate change hoax.  I hate to give them any credence, but obviously many do abide by such suggestions.

I boil it down to the status quo not being what it used to be.  The rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer with a big void developing in between.  Of course this is a bit over simplified, but the basic idea is encompassed in the statistics that demonstrate while productivity has gone up, the profits have not been shared proportionately.  Furthermore the people at the top are starting to assert themselves.  They believe they just have to be unshackled and everything will be ok.  They should not have to pay such a high percentage of their well deserved income, nor should they have to tolerate regulations that hem in their ability to generate more profits.  There are a lot of people trying to get a bigger piece of the pie or at least hang on to what they have.

Money talks.  Most of the viable candidates for president literally have a billionaire backing their efforts.  Donald Trump may well be a billionaire and can be self righteous about it.  In fact wealth can do great things; Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy are just two examples of wealth benefitting the masses. But it seems some billionaires think not only that they should have a right to pursue their dream of even more wealth, but that they should be able to tell others to do without.

The Media has a stake in all this.  They love to see expensive tv ads and a close race promises lots of those, especially when backed up by loose campaign finance laws.

Donald Trump certainly knows how to draw an audience.  I am astounded at how gullible people can be.  Shout a few derogatory remarks and many hold him in awe.  He doesn't take much trouble to explain himself, but easily assures people he is the best and can handle any difficulties very simply.

Bernie Sanders is not accepting Super Pacs or large donations.  Some of what he says is mocked by the establishment, but most of what he advocates such as single payer medicare and free tuition is accepted by other industrialized countries.  Basically he is fighting for the little guy, but in the end his approach might well be better for everyone.  No reflexive military response to international problems.  No abandoning people who can't afford an emergency.  Pay attention to what scientists have learned.  Our future is with youth being educated.

They each still have competition and could fall by the wayside.  Bernie just has one competitor,  Hilary Clinton but she has more connections.  Donald Trump has the advantage of a split opposition that still has a lot of egos that aren't ready to quit even if supporters tell them they should for the sake of the country.  One problem with the primaries as each candidate inevitably criticizes their opponents and some of that will carry forward and lot of bruised feelings will hamper future efforts.  So the longer they drag on the primary battles the harder it may be to win the grand prize.

One of my fantasies would be for Elizabeth Warren to endorse Bernie which I think would be a huge (and logical) step to the first Jewish president in American history.  He could reward her with Vice President or Treasury Dept, either of which might launch her to be the first female president of the United States.  Timing is important as decisions are being made and to some extent locked in.  But of course there is a risk as an endorsement might offend the other candidate.

Iowa, the process begins

As a Canadian I have no say in the American Presidential campaign, but the whole world has a stake in the final result.  The final result is more than just who becomes president, and includes the makeup of the Senate and the House of Representatives.  Together they will set the laws and even determine who interprets the law.  They can all have a huge impact on the rest of the world.  I don't pretend to understand all the details of the process, and I suspect few Americans do either.  As with anything similar, a lot of preparation has gone on for this contest and will continue with adjustments.

Iowa seems a strange place to begin the formal process.  It is more rural, less diverse and apparently has a higher percentage of evangelicals than most states.  All these factors colour the result, but more importantly help set the wheels in motion.  Farm subsidies are a bigger issue than elsewhere and candidates have to address this concern.  Interestingly the big Republican winner, Ted Cruz is against subsidies to the ethanol growers, but tempers it a bit by refusing subsidies to other energy providers to even the playing field.  Less diverse people and more evangelicals puts greater emphasis on the issue of abortion and same sex marriage.  Candidates often find themselves locked into positions that might not carry as much weight in subsequent elections.

Being the first chance to gain attention the Iowa caucuses can be critical to many politicians.  The outstanding example is Jimmy Carter who was basically an unknown former governor of Georgia.  He identified Iowa as critical to gain public awareness and build momentum.  Far ahead of the Iowa caucuses he devoted a great deal of time to understand what Iowans were concerned about and cultivated contacts.  He also was able to boast about his zero based accountng that was demonstrated early in his campaign.  Although he didn't win Iowa he got national attention and was able to build on it.  It hasn't always worked out that way for everyone as many have been able to overcome losing in Iowa (even badly) to win the final prize, but it is now seen as a necessary credibility step.

This all gives Iowa greater power than their small size would normally give.  Many citizens take the responsibility seriously and candidates are forced into  explaining themselves to large numbers of small groups.  They offer what many consider an archaic process that differs for Republicans and Democrats.  I don't totally understand it, but was struck by what I know about the Democrat caucus system.

Each candidate is given a space that others can go to register their support.  There is even a spot for the uncommitted.  After each candidate has a representative speak on their behalf the assembled voters get to make a choice.  Any group that has less than 15% overall is broken up and forced to go to another group.  Sometimes the uncommitted are able to dominate, but they also are split up if they fail to reach 15%.  Many of us in multi party systems end up voting strategically, but in reality we are guessing with skimpy information.  In Iowa it is pretty clear amongst the Democrats which candidate is dominating and which might benefit from some support.  After some jockeying a decision is made and I think in some instances it must be more satisfying than attempts to strategize votes in other jurisdictions.

With the results in, the dynamics are changing already.  Although the rest of the race to the White House has different rules it is normal for some losers to give up.  Behind the scenes some financial donators are making decisions as well.

There were a few surprises, but not totally out of line with predictions.  In many ways I am very unimpressed with the voters response, but then they probably don't think much of my reasoning.
Donald Trump to a great extent coasted on his tv reality show and some bombastic declarations.  He was defeated by a narrow minded focused, Ted Cruz who understood the importance of hard work and organizing.  As a Canadian I would like to interject that Trump's assertion that Cruz might be disqualified for his Canadian birth was very unfair.  That little bit of doubt probably encouraged some marginal Cruz supporters to look elsewhere.  I think originally the Constitutional requirement of natural American birth was to protect the new democracy against foreign born aristocrats. Nonetheless it is a stupid law that hurts everybody.  All voters deserve to get the best person available.  Also don't forget the Constitution left out women and slaves as voters.

The establishment was relieved to learn one of their favoured candidates, Marco Rubio finished third.  This will allow voters and financiers to consolidate their efforts and resources against the outsiders Trump and Cruz.  A year ago it was assumed by many that Jeb Bush would be able to represent establishment Republicans, but I think the Iowa results make that much more difficult.  Others will soon be weighing whether it is worth the effort.  Becoming president isn't the only motive as national attention can result in a political appointment, a tv contract a lobbying position or selection as the Vice President nominee.

The Republicans were able to tap into a well of fear and ignorance.  That is compounded by the size of the field meaning that each candidate tends to try to outdo their opponents in sensational claims.  It is true that the American economy is a big letdown for many voters and that international conflicts are scary, but they overlook who is responsible for that and who has been mopping up the mess much better than his predecessor.  In eight years a lot is forgotten, but the origins of much that is wrong in America was brought about by policies, decisions and people that associated with Republicans and which they wish to continue.  Obamacare, a big step in the right direction is denigrated (I think that is the right word) and too many people accept the Republican view.  A decision to go to war with Iraq was one of the most stupid and deceitful decisions ever with very long lasting consequences.  Giving rich bankers and investors less regulations resulted in a major disaster for which others paid the price.

There is more to the economy than just regulations or the lack thereof.  The global economy  works best for rich investors who can shift money and manufacturing facilities easily to co-operating jurisdictions for more profit.  We are also at a point where machines can produce more goods than people can.  For some investors they are able to take advantage of this and for the most part seem unconcerned about who they are displacing.  There have been small attempts to adjust, but they are resisted by those at the top of the food chain.

Over on the Democrat side it became obvious they have a two way race, casting aside Martin O'Malley, an intelligent individual but without a national profile  He never really had much of a chance to make himself and his ideas known on a national scale, but at least he made it to the debating platform.  Others dropped out and others decided not worth the effort.  Senator Elizabeth Warren and Vice President Joe Biden are out of the running, but may get a significant appointment if their party wins.

There is not as much difference between the two remaining Democrat candidates as there are between either one of them and the Republicans, but there is a difference.  Bernie Sanders is characterized as an idealist and it is unusual for an idealist to make it this far.  Usually they have to compromise more than Sanders has so far.  Like Trump he is also tapping into a great discontent in the American population, but I think he has identified the causes better than anyone.  He may not be able to implement his ideas, but likely would bring us closer to a fairer society.  Clinton positions herself as practical.  She knows that Congress will be difficult to work with and promises she will get results incrementally.

Perhaps as the fields narrow down the important issues will be discussed in a more reasonable manner.  Republicans reflexively deny climate change, a stance that still carries a lot of weight, but is slowly fading.  Obamacare needs to be improved not abolished.  Immigration (including refugees) needs to be reformed.   Inequality will inevitably get worse until there is either a violent revolution or a collapse of society.

Campaign finance over rides everything.  No prospective politician will get very far without large amounts of money.  They will have to spend a great deal of time and effort to get the money and perhaps even more critical, compromise.  One example is Marco Rubio getting money from a casino owner who is demanding favourable treatment for Israel which may not be in America's best interest.  Energy companies are huge donators who want to maintain their status quo.  Investors donate to give themselves favourable treatment.  It seems most of those willing to contribute to a campaign want something that is not in the best interest of the rest of us.

The media sees the whole process as an opportunity.  The news creates interest and they tend to treat it as a horse race or a platform for sensationalism.  Most importantly they can get a lot of advertising revenue.  They certainly can and do often distort things.  CNN highlighted a weak moment of Howard Dean that helped undo his campaign, but had little to do with what he offered the country.   If they would just highlight candidate distortions and falsifications they would be rendering a public service, but they tend to just skim over the issues.

Will the Americans end up with the best result under their system?   We may never know what dedicated servant who is knowledgeable and exercises good judgment under stress would have come forward if it had been easier.  We can get only those who muster the resources to put on a good show.

The idea of starting with Iowa is not all bad as it forces candidates to talk to more actual voters.  That gives hard workers a chance to create awareness.  Part of the problem is the length of the voting, starting with the primaries and also including the national campaign.  It is a huge country and it takes time to cover it all, but there is another dynamic that cuts that down.  Many states already give the appearance of giving their voting delegates to one party or the other which means both parties feel little need to cater to them instead putting their resources where the outcome (as determined by history and polls) is undecided.  There is a trade-off between the expensive time required to make a case and the scope of the voters concerns.  There is no perfect system, but it is due for a study.

Clinton Vs Sanders

My bias is that either Hilary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would be much preferable to any of the Republican candidates--so if you disagree you can skip the rest.  The world will be a different place if either of these two become President of the United States.

I also confess that I liked Howard Dean who eventually lost to John Kerry in the 2004 primary.   Howard Dean has since made contributions to the Democratic party.  John Kerry after losing the 2004 presidential election has proved to be an admirable Secretary of State.  Either man would have been better than what actually happened--unnecessary war and a major financial crisis.

Underlying the political scene in the U.S. is that rich people have a disproportionate influence in the matter.  Unfortunately this will not change, but should in one way be the voter's focus.  In that regard Bernie Sanders is the knight in shining armour charging at the enemy.  Again, unfortunately one man can only do so much and any attempt to change the situation will run up against Congress who have proved to be most resistant to any great change affecting the distribution of wealth.  Congress has several entrenched ways of resisting radical change.  In the Senate you need 60 out of 100 votes to move forward on many laws.  In the House of Representatives gerrymandering makes it seem unlikely the Democrats will gain control over the next election or maybe even two.  This also presupposes that all the Democrats (most of whom have their own donor obligations) would support Sanders agenda.

Campaign financing has been widened since a Supreme Court decision on the Citizens United case.  As campaigns are so expensive and so prolonged this gives wealthy people a chance to dominate politics.  They complain about government stealing their money, about lazy workers or those on welfare, about undesirables killing our culture.  In actual fact most Americans are born handicapped in the sense that  they are unlikely to be given the opportunities offered to the families of the 1%.

The only political way around those obstacles is a real political movement where elected officials fear for their re-election  Perhaps if Bernie can get a bigger platform that might start to happen, but I think it would take another election in 2018 to give him the necessary leverage.

Like many armchair critics I have sometimes been disappointed in Obama.  He could have spoken out more often and louder.  In truth he is an excellent speaker with a good vision.  He is hamstrung not only by rules, not only by racial prejudice, but also by money.  He would not have been elected if he had not attracted large amounts of money which inevitably comes with obligations.  He has accomplished a lot and now that he is in his last year is offering a better vision that his monied opposition.  Many of his good things have squeaked in with a lot of muscling and luck.  With a congress more supportive he would have accomplished a lot more.

Hilary Clinton is a politician and understands she needs money and she needs political support to get elected and to get things done.  I think she is realistic in how to gain power and what the constraints are.  I think her intentions are reasonably honourable.  Her pragmatism is commendable.  But at the same time her hands will be tied with her dependence on Wall Street and other campaign donations.

To some extent she seems also tied into being relatively hawkish on foreign affairs.  To some degree this may reflect a need to counter Republican bluster, but much may just be her inclination.  I think she has a fairly good understanding of the Mid East, but not quite as inclined to diplomacy as Obama or Sanders.  It is a delicate negotiation to talk to find common ground and building trust and reflection that cannot be denied.  Projecting strength undoubtedly intimidates many potential troublemakers.  I think a big part of war talk comes from arms manufacturers who benefit from international tensions.

The drinking water crisis in Flint Michigan has had different responses from the two candidates.  Bernie demanded that the Michigan Governor Rick Snyder resign.  In some jurisdictions that might have happened, but not very realistic for a Republican Governor.  Hilary took the more diplomatic route and suggested that Governor Snyder seek federal help which he did shortly after.  You could argue her timing was good (as others had made the same suggestion), and that Bernie was within his rights, but this time Hilary did exhibit better diplomacy or political manoeuvering.  Flint hits closer to home for me as several years ago both of my children competed in the CANUSA games with Flint and we have visited Fint and hosted some athletes from there.

I think they both have similar ideas on climate change, but I think Bernie would have more leverage against the big oil conglomerates as he has avoided donations from big oil.  Either would give the planet a better survival opportunity than the Republican denialists.

Electability is a big concern.  The Republicans led by Trump are very blustery and getting the attention of the masses who do not understand the details, mistrust authority and have their own set of prejudices.  Bernie seems to tap into some of the mistrust sentiments, but is a lot more practical in what he offers.  Clinton does have some inevitabilities about her--Bill Clinton was popular and successful and Obama did trust Hilary.  On top of that some voters see that a woman is overdue.  Perhaps Elizabeth Warren could be a vice president for Bernie,  but not practical for Clinton.  Bernie would probably be a one term president allowing Warren to be the first women president.  Elizabeth is the first choice of many Democrats.

Gun control is one area where Hillary has the backing of more Democrats and Bernie is somewhat not quite on board.  I think here he might be the practical one as he has a constituency that is rural.

It is amazing to watch the Republicans cut each other up and try to outdo the others by promising more stupid action.  The Democrats (including forgotten Martin O'Malley) have so far avoided such antics, but they are now criticizing one another and picking out words outside the context.  It is very true that Hilary Clinton has the inside track with lots of connections and in the end this could be the strongest factor against Bernie.

My hope is that Bernie will do well in the first two primaries and get looked at by some of Hilary's backers, particularly minorities who will see he is more on their side than they realized.  Black Lives Matter seems to have gotten Bernie more involved in their issues and he does have a long history of supporting minority groups including gays.  Bernie may win even if he doesn't get the nomination because he will steer the Democrats away from catering to the wealthy.

The mainstream media is glossing over Bernie who has been attracting comparable crowds to Donald Trump and has more grassroots donators than anyone, but he is a threat to their masters.  Most of us realize the world is stacked in favour of the very rich, but feel powerless to do anything about it.  Bernie speaks for us.  Hilary might be more successful in minor improvements.  History swings like a pendulum--one side dominates, then becomes complacent and an opposition emerges.