We desperately need another Nelson Mandela

This blog may seem rambling, because it is.  My belief is that everything is connected.  Unfortunately the weaknesses of mankind has a strangling influence.  Some of those in power cling to it with little regard to long term consequences.  Power has been centralized.  The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  If something is not done (and soon) mankind seems destined for disaster.

Power is like a magnet for some individuals.  They visualize what they can accomplish with it.  Bigger house, nicer car, better clothes, more sexual choice.  Some enjoy obedience from everyone, even creating the fear of disobeying a whim.  Others fancy getting important things done ranging from lowering taxes to reducing crime to purifying the air.  Being important is a goal in itself.  Being above the law is intoxicating.  Controlling others allows one to indulge in fantasies.  To get power it sometimes is necessary to take advantage of prejudice and ignorance   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/06/dying-of-whiteness.html

The Epstein Files, such as we know them, reveal that the very rich can indulge in sexual fantasies.  For some that means having sex with younger females or inflicting pain.  One man seems willing to use hurtful diversions to maintain his innocence.

Nelson Mandela, after suffering unfair imprisonment was so courageous and principled that he was eventually given power.  He was admired by enough people that he gained even more power.  He could easily have sought revenge or sought to enjoy all sorts of luxuries that he had been denied until he was almost too old to enjoy them.   He wanted the white South Africans to stay and developed the concept of truth and reconciliation and attracted the World Rugby Championship.  After his death I wrote a blog about Nelson Mandela.http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/12/nelson-mandela.html    A decade later I realized it took two men to change South Africa.   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/09/we-need-another-nelson-mandela-and-fw.html

 There are still a lot of capable individuals who are honest and caring.  Unfortunately most of them lack sufficient power.  The people below are some examples of leaders who have demonstrated leadership.

Barrack Obama used Abraham Lincoln as a sort of model.  Both men prefer a team of advisors that would challenge them.  Doris Kearns Goodwin noted that Abraham Lincoln deliberately developed a team of rivals.   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2011/11/team-of-rivals-has-lessons-for-today.html

It was pretty nervy for Pete Buttigieg, a small town mayor who was openly gay to run in a presidential leadership contest.  Somehow he proved to be well tempered, remaining calm while using logic to determine root causes and options.  He strikes me as a logical choice to make decisions on a global scale, but is handicapped by prejudice and ignorance.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a comic actor whose politics was expressed in satire, struck a nerve.  His election surprised many, even more so when Russians invaded he did not flee.  He displayed courage and organizing.  His first language is Russian and at some point he may be able to demonstrate forgiveness.   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/06/servant-of-people-final-episodes.html

A woman who crossed my path is Chrystia Freeland.  She has a long run view and understands the lure of power.  She played second fiddle to the Prime Minister and made a bold move that forced him out. http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/01/plutocrats-by-chrystia-freeland.html

Yuval Noah Harari  has caught my attention for his understanding of human nature, where we came from and where we are headed.  He explains AI.  Does not subscribe to the idea of Jews being God's chosen people.  He is also openly gay and lives in Israel which may be a bonus, or a deterrent. http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/10/nexus.html

Mark Carney has recently come to global recognition.  Handling Trump is a real test, but Carney has done a fair balancing act.  He has drawn a few lines and diversified trade and defence

Of course others could have been mentioned, and there is no perfect choice.  Is the final decision maker the only leader?  Part of Trump's downfall will be attributed to his choice of advisors selected for loyalty, not expertise or level headedness.  That should have been a clue before the election.

In pre history leaders were chosen informally by followers recognizing competence first hand.  Expertise was acknowledged and different group members would lead different tasks.  Then we got civilized?  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/07/selected.html

Since recorded history we have endured many monarchs or dictators and have developed concepts of democracy, but in general powerful people were able to use money, connections and sophistication to manipulate.  As my regular readers know, I advocate proportional representation, but even that only works with educated voters (but PR generally is more conducive to education).   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2023/10/your-vote-neednt-be-wasted.html

There have been many dominant powers, but they all eventually are diminished.  Fareed Zakaria refers to the British Empire whose power was global didn't collapse from outside attack, but did get spread too thin to manage.

At some future date it seems possible that mankind could galvanize over climate change.  At the moment it seems not enough powerful people are suffering, but it seems likely the suffering will steadily increase. The Iran war is steering more nations and people to seek alternatives to fossil fuel.  We are still headed for climate disaster, but sufficient people do not yet realize that.

To survive the world needs more long term thinking and more respect for science.  And above all we need to co-operate for everyone's best interest.  Hate hurts everyone and has all too often been used as a tool to benefit a small number of people.

Nelson Mandela presented what we need.  A collaborator with a vision.

Thank you Fabrice for getting me on this track. 

What's after Donald Trump?

 It is a little presumptuous to predict the future, especially in such volatile times.  However, one way or another, sooner or later, Trump will be gone.  Will Americans have learned a lesson?  How about Republicans?

Polling has been trending downward and Trump is concerned about his MAGA base.  Talking about altering elections, perhaps claiming a national emergency.  In the months in between conservative forces will try to control who can vote.  The Texas gerrymandering may backfire as it has been pointed out many Texas Republican districts have been weakened.  Some of their efforts might create heavy protests and even the Supreme Court might rebel against anti democratic efforts.  Never admit mistakes has been a major part of Trump's strategy.

From February of 2026 it seems unlikely he can be ousted, but almost every Republican up for re-election will have some difficult decisions:  retire, seek other employment, change their policy votes and public statements or maybe just hang in there to grab what power might be available?  Might there be a scramble to take advantage of new opportunities?  There will always be opportunities for ambitious people, especially if they have low morals.  See  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/07/trump-as-tool.html

At the moment it would take only a few Republicans to stymie some of Trump's wishes, but they fear repercussions.  International leaders are trying to align themselves to soften the blows and perhaps force a few retreats.  If Republican legislators wait too long for decisive action they further increase the risk of losing and further tainting their reputation.  It does seem likely the House of Representatives will cut Trump's power significantly should the Democrats win as seems likely.

Depending on how the Senate midterms turn out, impeachment may be realistic or some other legal remedy.  What will the remaining Republican legislators do?  What about all the Trump appointees?  He has appointed countless people based on loyalty, to positions that affect everyone.  His influence will linger until after he is removed from office. 

Notwithstanding unforeseen events it seems likely the Democrats will take over in 2028.  They have their own agenda, but part will be to undo much of the Trump agenda.

How will Democrats approach the future?  In 2024 I thought Kamala Harris was the best candidate, period.  She didn't win, and many Democrats will rule her out because of race and gender.  (see http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/09/the-choice.html  Gavin Newsom, another prospect from California is handsome and articulate.  Pete Buttigieg with his intelligence and demeanour would be ideal, but unlikely to get a real chance.  Part of the harm done by Trump has been his selection of advisors (or really executors) based on loyalty.  Democrats have a history of choosing on merit and diversity of opinion and have a lot of possible suitable advisors.

A couple of issues to deal with.

War:  There are a number of sore spots such as Ukraine, Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland, Europe, Iran, Palestine, China, India and of course Canada.  Americans will realize they are stronger when they get along with the rest of the world.  Putin is proving to be a masterful manipulator.

Immigration:  Yes, bad people have crossed the border and others will continue to struggle to boost their standard of living.  On the other hand America actually needs immigrants and as their population ages the need will become more desperate.  Increasingly older adults and working mothers will need helpers in a variety of tasks.  Innovation is spurred by diversity and will be needed in a competitive world.  Many prospects will have been discouraged and distrustful.  They may seek alternatives--Canada would be a logical choice.

Environment:  Climate change is creeping up and becoming increasingly difficult to reverse.  There will still be lots of resistance, but the government will need to be more active in correcting misinformation coming from ignorance and vested interests.  The true power of United States comes from setting a good example.

Healthcare:  More people recognize the importance of healthcare for the nation.  It is not only that financing cures are more expensive than preventing illness, but that good health is good for the economy.

Tariffs:  It has been proven that tariffs do not encourage international co-operation.  Basically they raise domestic prices and narrow choices.  That some are raised because Trump has a difference of opinion with foreign leaders is despicable.

Taxes have always been an election tool, but eventually the bills have to be paid or there will be even more serious consequences.  The wealthy thrive in a growing economy and are in position to exploit opportunities, but they will have to share the burden of running the government.  Progressive taxation needs to tilt more against the already wealthy.  A good economy for all is a good economy for the rich.

Crime is another emotional issue.  Yes, there will always be a need for enforcing laws and hopefully including fraud of various kinds.  Obama once said that inequality is a cause of crime.  Dealing with it requires skills, training and money.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (D.E.I.) has been attacked as discrimination.  The real need is for equality of opportunity.  Education is a key with a special effort to identify and develop talents.  When a minority gets their foot in the door they are able to widen the opening.  

Of course there are many, many details.  One major change that could expedite everything else would be electoral reform.  This is a very complex issue, but a good start would be to legislate against gerrymandering.  America has a first past the post system that discourages many from voting, realizing (or assuming) their vote won't make any difference.  Most voters try to analyze complex packages of policies.  A proportional system has proved to increase voter turnout, longevity, income equality, environmental improvements and according to some scientific surveys, happiness.  Those who got elected under the present electoral system will resist changes.

I am sure someone has set up betting odds for various possibilities.  Voters need to focus on what is best for them, but also what is best for the nation and the world, because in the long run that is what is best for everyone.

"107 Days" the campaign of Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris was for over seven years my favored candidate.  This book is sad in the  sense of "What might have been."

The "107 Days"  (2025) refers to how much time she had to campaign.  It was a delicate situation following a disastrous debate for Joe Biden.  Democrat leaders felt this would almost certainly lead to a defeat in the 2024 election.  Yet getting him to resign was a formidable task and Biden didn't feel he deserved to be discarded.  His record under the trying circumstances of dealing with a pandemic should have been something to be proud of, but the average citizen felt he had been a poor president, egged on by a ranting Donald Trump.

Other people could see a problem with a black and Indian woman married to a Jew.  Seen by some as too progressive and not possessing the name recognition felt necessary.  The Bidens felt she needed to be loyal to them and were sensitive to how he would be treated.  Practically it was conceded that Kamala was the logical choice.

On a CNN broadcast John King was heard to say "I think the greatest acts of political malpractice...is they  have kept her under wraps for 3 years."  She had been showcased a lot more in California, but when given a chance proved to be articulate and exercised good judgment.

Was there enough time?  The book is broken down mostly to day by day decisions and actions with a few flashbacks.

A big obstacle noted at the book's beginning is expressed in a quote by Alberto Brandolini:  "The amount of energy to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

Gaza presented an issue that had changed.  The Democrats and Republicans had both supported Israel financially and politically for decades, but Muslims were coming to have more influence in western nations.  More people could appreciate the Palestinian story of being dispossessed and Israel with American support were being accused of genocide.  The Democrats and Kamala were in favor of a two state solution, but found Benjamin Netanyahu intransigent on this issue.  Many voters and not just Muslims now felt Israel was guilty of genocide.  It could have been seen by many, that the Republicans  were closer to Netanyahu's position, but Kamala lost votes to Palestinian sympathizers.

Transexuals were another issue that was blown up.  In truth they represented a very small sector of the public, but induced feelings of squeamishness that were fanned by a major targeted ad campaign of Trump. Kamala was tied to this and in fact she was just being ethical and legal. 

A major decision was to pick a Vice President.  She admits her first choice would have been Pete Buttigieg, but felt that an openly gay man would be too big a burden.  She narrowed it down to Josh Shapiro, Mark Kelly and Tim Walz with each having pluses and minuses and she finally chose Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota.  Afterwards asked Barrack Obama how he decided on Joe Biden and he said Biden represented a different political view that he thought was good for future decisions.

Elon Musk turned out to be a decisive factor.  He spent millions and his marketing expertise helped to buy the election.  Laws at one time limited financial influence on elections, but the Republicans whittled restrictions away to allow someone like Musk to have an undo effect.

Debates also play a role in voter decisions.  Kamala took a few days off her travel schedule to prepare.  Many would say she won the debate, but facts were not relevant to MAGA supporters.

Climate change should have been a major issue, but Kamala realized most voters saw it at best, a long term concern while consumers were upset about the cost of living that they blamed Biden for increasing.   Unable to appreciate that the pandemic had been aggravated by Trump and required a lot of extra spending to deal with that was the real cause of inflation.  Biden had actually outperformed other wealthy countries.

Each day demanded choices.  She tried to emphasize efforts in the battleground states, but had obligations to cover other states.  

A personal problem she acknowledged was on her birthday.  A lot of effort had been made by friends, relatives and staff to ensure an appropriate celebration.  Her husband Doug Emhoff, perhaps under stress disappointed her.  He gifted her with a favorite style pearl necklace, but when examined she learned he had had it engraved with a date that wasn't her birthday, but their anniversary date that had been gifted at that time and he had tried to combine the days with one purchase.  There were a few other details that bloggers like me could only guess, but they did have a falling out.  He did make it up a few days later.

She had been negotiating to take part in an interview with popular Joe Rogan.  He indicated he was willing and she indicated a date but he said he was taking that day off.  Other dates just didn't work out and then on his personal day off he endorsed Trump.  A lot of time was wasted on that effort.

We all know the results.  It was not quite as overwhelming as Trump liked to portray, but the country now has a new leader with new policies.

At one point Kamala made a prediction before the election:  "In less than 90 days, either Donald Trump or I will be in the Oval Office.  On day one, if elected, Donald Trump would walk into that office with an enemies list.  When elected I will walk in with a to-do list...". 

She still had more than two months to go as Vice President.  She honored tradition and certified the election of Trump.  She did her best to give a smooth transition.

The future is uncertain, but she maintains the fight is not over.  She points out that the Republicans have steadily shaped the laws to favor the wealthy and by appealing to prejudices.  It is not just Trump who is the problem, but his followers.  See http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2022/07/trump-as-tool.html

She feels the best hope is with Generation Z who have lived through the pandemic, economic turmoil that followed and will face the impact of a worsening climate change and AI.  Education will be important to the newcomers, but also for the rest of us.

Her book, "107 Days" packs a realistic record of the stresses of an election campaign.

Here is how I saw the choice:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/09/the-choice.html

From her book before the 2020 election:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2024/09/kamala-harris-truths-we-hold.html

Network of Liars

Trump has been a nightmare obsession of mine, but really he is just one man.  He had lots of support including the Fox network.  The two  have a symbiotic relationship.

After finishing this book, as others have said, Trump is not the real danger; his followers are.  I would say the same about Fox and their supporters.  Fox correctly identified an audience with neglected grievances.  They courted them with great success and then became dependent on them.  The majority of their viewers had racist and homophobic sympathies or were advocates for gun rights or just hated government authority.

Fox learned the hard way, they have created a monster.  They helped create an audience and then found if they changed their tune their audience would abandon them.  Fox management were upset  with Trump after January 6th ( and many before then) and Ron De Santis was seen as a better alternative, but not their audience that had started looking for someone who would support their set beliefs.

On January 6th, Trump was stuck on the Fox station from 1:25 and thus was well aware of the commotion outside the Capital.

The Fox audience loved someone who could defy conventions that they hated.  They bundled Trump's issues into their own.  Any accusations by commentators were brushed aside as political lies.

Only vaguely aware of the Murdoch family and was surprised to learn they were more complicated than previously assumed.  However not surprised that the big focus was on making money.  One son, James with his wife Kathryn was against  right wing politics and the two strongly were involved with environmental issues.  Another son, Lachlan was taking over the operation with concerns of building. a bigger empire  Two sisters were mostly in the background, but also had a vote on the business.  Rupert himself was sharp and staunchly conservative in his 90's, but sometimes distracted by his merry go round of wives.

Paul Ryan, the former House Speaker was on the Fox board director.  A conservative he felt Trump was bad for the Republicans and/or Fox.  He was one of those who preferred Trump should be sidelined.    

A lot of Fox hosts play a role in the book.  Number one is Tucker Carlson whose firing was outlined near the beginning and explanations followed up towards the end.  Carlson enjoyed being provocative has gone on to be even more so.  Although he had very high ratings he also attracted advertising boycotts.  Maria Bartiromo seemed to be a true Trumper, a bit unhinged in other words.  Sean Hannity was revealed to be practical in his treatment of Trump.

The Dominion case was covered as they were able to hurt Fox, although only temporarily.  Fox was able to claim their disinformation was based on their honest beliefs.   Dominion was able to succeed to show malice by uncovering e mails and also some statements bt Rupert Murdoch.  

The House Select Investigation Committee was concerned.  Those who dismissed the hearing findings  should have noticed the incriminating information came from Republicans, many of them appointed by Trump.  They, not the television zombies actually had personal contact with the egotistical president at revealing times.

There are counter trends to disinformation that hopefully will grow.  One example given was from Pete Buttigieg, the Transportation Secretary who has sought an opportunity to speak on Fox which may not convert very many Trumpers, but assures that correct information is received.  To my way of thinking education is a key.  The author recounts how his six year old came home, talked about a school test with a quiz "Fact or Opinion?" which Brian adapted to "Fact, Opinion or Lie?" Actually youngsters were able to sort them out.

Brian Selter, the author is someone I used look forward to listening to on Sunday mornings as he was always trying to get at the truth.  In this book has done a lot of digging to get the details that might help us understand.

Fox definitely enabled Donald Trump and such like.  There were other enablers:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/07/trump-enablers.html

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.