My Pre-Primary Democratic Nominee Prediction

If there is one thing I’ve been sure of, it’s that the conventional wisdom of the past few months that Joe Biden was the locked in choice for the Democratic nominee for President, was wrong.  At no time, did I ever think that Biden had a chance. Not because he was a gaffe machine; that’s something that plagued him his entire career, but that he was too old and it would show on the campaign trail, and Democratic Primary voters just wouldn’t think he would be up to the job (the job of beating Trump, not being President).

However for the longest time I wasn’t sure which of the many Democratic candidates was going to rise to the top spot, but now I think I’ve gotten an idea of who could win the nomination, and that candidate is Senator Elizabeth Warren.  Yeah, it’s a surprise to me too.  Going back to 2012 I had pretty much discounted Warren because of her “Fauxcahontas” scandal, one that has provided many hilarious updates since then. But actually running in a Presidential race provides a great opportunity to separate the Presidential wheat from the chaff.

Four years ago if someone had asked me who was likely to get the 2020 Democratic nomination I would have guessed…Hillary?  For her second term?  But Corey Booker would have been my second choice.  As Mayor of Newark he seemed a dynamic Obama Part two, but since becoming Senator, he’s revealed the truth of the Peter Principle; Booker is not up to his current position and looks a good deal weaker and less consequential then he did as a mayor.  Apparently Democratic donors and polled Democratic primary voters agree.  He doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

Kamala Harris who started out the gate strong, also seems to be faltering.  I would have given her much greater odds earlier in the race.  The Democratic primary voter seems to want a socialist, just not a white male one (sorry Bernie).  In 2016, Bernie was the only socialist in the race, now, when there are plenty of socialists available of every color and sex…err I mean gender, voters can be pickier.  CNN’s Don Lemon disputed that Harris could even be called an African American.  That’s actually a fair point since Harris, whose mother is Indian and father is mixed, is about as black as George Zimmerman.  However Harris identifies herself as African American.  Why she doesn’t identify as Indian American I don’t know, since that would be more accurate, but I suppose there is more electoral cache in that than in identifying as Indian.  That didn’t help Warren.

However Warren has managed to get through three debates without saying something stupid, or at least stupid for a Democratic debate.  That may be a new candidate record.  On the other hand, Biden can’t get to a commercial without saying something stupid in every debate.  The only thing keeping his candidacy afloat is the idea that he can beat Trump, but the more he turns into Grampa Simpson, the less likely that seems, and it gives the opportunity for other candidates to rise.

And, as this NBC/WSJ poll shows, Warren is catching up with Biden.   At this rate, Warren could catch Biden in a month or so, and then even talking heads will have to take notice.  Fair to say, some of them have.  I’ve noticed the pro Biden Morning Joe starting to turn to highly complementary things to say about Warren.  It looks to me that they are preparing their MSNBC audience for a new front runner. Biden won’t fade out quickly however.  He has a lot of money behind him, and I for one wouldn’t mind hearing more rambling stories about Biden fighting “Corn Pop” with a chain.

 

The Reparations Gambit

I have been waiting for this ball to drop for a long time.  I thought maybe that 2014 would be the year that the Democrats would pull the electoral ripcord on the reparations issue, but they seemed to drop the ball on it and suffered in the elections accordingly.  Then in 2016 I thought Hillary would pull reparations out of her purse (it was right beside the hot sauce) and close the enthusiasm gap among black voters.  But she was so confident that she couldn’t lose that she decided it could stay in her purse.  Like Trump was really going to beat her?  After all, once you pull the reparations card, it’s out for good.  You can’t change your mind and stick in back in your oversized purse.

But now the issue is out, and it looks like 2020 will be the first Presidential election year (and forever more) that reparations become a real political issue. According to The New York Times, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Julián Castro have all come out in support of some type of reparations.  They are rather vague on the details and price tag, but eh, it’s still early, and besides, those sorts of details are not very important or at least no more important than details and price tag for a “Green Deal.”

By the time we get to the nomination, some form of reparations will be part of the candidate’s agenda and part of the Democratic Party platform.  And it can join the other trillion dollar promises, like Medicare for all, Green Dreams, Universal Basic Income (UBI), Universal Daycare, Free College, and the hundreds of other spending fantasies.  However unlike the other high dollar promises, reparations promise to be eternally racially divisive.

Just what this country needs.

To be fair, slavery reparations do have the tug of moral authority to them.  In a perfect world, I would support them myself. A great evil was done and there should be some sort of compensation for it. However it’s 150 years later. There is no one alive that was a slave, and the practicalities of coming up with a fair and just system to compensate their descendants seem pretty daunting.  I’ve thought long and hard on this subject myself and have yet to figure out a way, or have read of any such plan, that would be workable and just.

Never has the devil been more in the details of a policy than in reparations.  If Abraham Lincoln’s Freedman’s Bureau had been allowed to continue its work, and the newly freed slaves had gotten their 40 acres and a mule, this issue would have been one and done.  But now, who do you compensate?  If, for example, you have theoretical reparations of a $50,000 credit, to be applied to either college or home down payment (the two gateways to the middle class), do you give it to the man, his, son, or his son (assuming all living)?  Should it be given to the oldest living relative in a family, or the youngest?  Or do you just give it to every descendant of slaves from now on?

Of course, that means Barrack Obama, Colin Powell, or Kamala Harris would be entitled to zero reparations since none of them are descendants of American slaves. What about Malia Obama, the President’s daughter?  Would she get half of reparations? And how would you determine eligibility?  There are probably a lot of African Americans who would have a great deal of difficulty laying their hands on all of the documentation necessary to prove ancestry from the slaves freed in 1865.  So would you just go by skin color? Self Identification? DNA?  Imagine, Rachel Dolezal being eligible for reparations. Or imagine the millions of white people with sub-Saharan ancestry thanks to DNA testing, who want their piece of the reparations pie.  If the one drop rule is good for the goose…

But in a way, the very difficulty in figuring out the right policy is a feature, not a bug.  It’s more useful as an issue than an actual policy. And with the added benefit of being racially divisive, it’s the perfect issue for Democrats to run on in 2020.

And every election thereafter.