washingtonmonthly--2020-02-20--Moderate Democrats Should Join Forces If They Want to Beat Sanders

After the 2000 presidential election , when George W. Bush narrowly defeated Al Gore in the Electoral College with an assist from the Supreme Court , many critics blamed Ralph Nader .
His candidacy arguably cost Gore the election , because Nader received more than 90,00 votes in Florida , where Bush ’ s margin of victory was just 537 .
If Nader had not been in the race , the vast majority of those votes would have gone to Gore , the argument goes .
He may have run as a champion for progressive values , but he ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the White House .
Unfortunately , Joe Biden , Michael Bloomberg , Pete Buttigieg , and Amy Klobuchar are all playing the Ralph Nader role in the 2020 Democratic primary .
Each of them is unintentionally causing something they are trying to prevent—the ascendance of Bernie Sanders as the party ’ s nominee .
It ’ s not their fault , really .
None of these above candidates could know that in a crowded field—in which Sanders was not the perceived frontrunner—their bids would boost Sanders .
But that is what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a close second in the Iowa caucuses and winning the New Hampshire primary , Sanders is surging in the polls and holds a sizable over all of his rivals .
But a closer look at the early states that have voted shows that he ’ s not exactly winning .
While Sanders earned 26 percent of the votes in Iowa , Buttigieg , Biden , and Klobuchar earned 56 percent collectively .
And while Bernie earned 25 percent of the vote in New Hampshire , the other three garnered 51 percent .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nomination by only winning a plurality of his party ’ s voters while the others duke it out over the majority of them .
This has happened before .
Donald Trump prevailed in 2016 not because a majority of Republican voters preferred him , but because too many other candidates stayed in the race for too long .
In fact , Trump won only about a third of the votes in early states .
Had more candidates dropped out sooner , with one of them able to consolidate support from GOP voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be living in a very different world today .
That comes with a valuable lesson .
If any of the moderate candidates want to have a real shot against Sanders , three of them must drop out immediately and then run a well-coordinated campaign to support the fourth .
Whichever candidate has the best poll numbers and momentum after Super Tuesday should lead the ticket .
Sometimes , political logjams work themselves out .
The problem is that this time , each of the four candidates in the “ moderate lane ” has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Buttigieg was neck and neck with Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire .
Klobuchar got more votes in New Hampshire than Warren and Biden combined .
Biden is still leading in polls in South Carolina , which he hopes can resurrect his candidacy .
And Bloomberg , who hasn ’ t competed in early states , has spent unprecedented amounts of money in anticipation of Super Tuesday and is gaining traction in the polls .
He has no reason to drop out before then .
Each of the candidates likely hopes for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forcing the other three to drop out and giving them a chance to take on Sanders alone .
But it won ’ t work .
If they wait that long , Sanders will probably have accumulated such a significant delegate lead that it won ’ t matter .
Polls show Sanders leading in delegate-rich Texas and California .
FiveThirtyEight ’ s forecast believes Sanders is about four times more likely than the next closest candidate ( Biden ) to win the nomination .
To be clear , it ’ s not that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest of stopping Bernie Sanders .
They need to unify to help themselves , and the voters who support them .
If they really believe their approach has a better chance of beating Trump than Sanders ’ s , this may be the only way .
It ’ s a matter of strategy .
The longer each “ moderate ” stays in the race , the worse all of their chances .
And though pundits are beginning to sound the alarm , expecting the deadlock to break up on its own is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ moderate ” candidates drop out soon , it won ’ t be enough .
Only concerted , headline-making , collective action will work , which is why the “ moderate ” candidates should set their egos aside , join forces , and take unprecedented steps .
Here ’ s how it could work .
After Super Tuesday , the three candidates who are worst positioned to win the nominations end their campaigns and endorse the fourth .
Each of the three who bow out should be promised a cabinet seat or other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want it .
Maybe one is even promised the vice-presidential slot , but the nominee could also try to bring a candidate who has dropped out , like Cory Booker , or another popular national figure like Stacey Abrams .
It ’ s easy to imagine some appealing tickets like Klobuchar-Booker or Biden-Abrams .
The campaigns could also merge their staffs , resources , and ground games to the extent possible .
Combining Biden ’ s resonance with black voters , Klobuchar ’ s Midwestern appeal , Buttigieg ’ s campaign strategy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support one candidate would create an extremely formidable campaign .
Of course , all of these candidates can spend weeks or months arguing over who deserves to lead the ticket , but this is not the time for selfishness .
None of this is to say that such an approach would definitely prevent Sanders from winning the primary .
Or that his nomination would be a disaster on anything resembling the scale of George W. Bush ’ s presidency .
That said , this is the most important election of any of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a catastrophe for the nation and the world .
The historical evidence cuts in favor of nominating a more moderate candidate .
Ralph Nader could not foresee his impact on the 2000 race when he launched his campaign .
But as Election Day neared , and it was clear he might be a spoiler , he had options .
He could have approached Gore ’ s campaign and offered to bow out of the race and endorse him in exchange for certain concessions to advance his agenda .
It wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in hindsight , it may have been the right one .
Of course , leadership entails doing what ’ s difficult , especially when it is hard .
The moderate Democrats running for president are at a similar crossroads now .
If Pete , Amy , Joe , and Mike truly believe that any one of them would be a better nominee than Sanders , they must decide whether they ’ d rather let things play out on their own and watch Sanders win , or set their egos aside and join forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real chance .

After the 2000 presidential election, when George W. Bush narrowly defeated Al Gore in the Electoral College with an assist from the Supreme Court, many critics blamed Ralph Nader. His candidacy arguably cost Gore the election, because Nader received more than 90,00 votes in Florida, where Bush’s margin of victory was just 537. If Nader had not been in the race, the vast majority of those votes would have gone to Gore, the argument goes. He may have run as a champion for progressive values, but he ultimately set progressives back by putting a conservative in the White House.
Unfortunately, Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar are all playing the Ralph Nader role in the 2020 Democratic primary. Each of them is unintentionally causing something they are trying to prevent—the ascendance of Bernie Sanders as the party’s nominee.
It’s not their fault, really. None of these above candidates could know that in a crowded field—in which Sanders was not the perceived frontrunner—their bids would boost Sanders. But that is what’s happening now. After coming in a close second in the Iowa caucuses and winning the New Hampshire primary, Sanders is surging in the polls and holds a sizable over all of his rivals.
But a closer look at the early states that have voted shows that he’s not exactly winning. While Sanders earned 26 percent of the votes in Iowa, Buttigieg, Biden, and Klobuchar earned 56 percent collectively. And while Bernie earned 25 percent of the vote in New Hampshire, the other three garnered 51 percent. In other words, Sanders is sliding toward the nomination by only winning a plurality of his party’s voters while the others duke it out over the majority of them.
This has happened before. Donald Trump prevailed in 2016 not because a majority of Republican voters preferred him, but because too many other candidates stayed in the race for too long. In fact, Trump won only about a third of the votes in early states. Had more candidates dropped out sooner, with one of them able to consolidate support from GOP voters who disapproved of Trump, we would be living in a very different world today.
That comes with a valuable lesson. If any of the moderate candidates want to have a real shot against Sanders, three of them must drop out immediately and then run a well-coordinated campaign to support the fourth. Whichever candidate has the best poll numbers and momentum after Super Tuesday should lead the ticket.
Sometimes, political logjams work themselves out. The problem is that this time, each of the four candidates in the “moderate lane” has a reason to stay in the race. Buttigieg was neck and neck with Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire. Klobuchar got more votes in New Hampshire than Warren and Biden combined. Biden is still leading in polls in South Carolina, which he hopes can resurrect his candidacy. And Bloomberg, who hasn’t competed in early states, has spent unprecedented amounts of money in anticipation of Super Tuesday and is gaining traction in the polls. He has no reason to drop out before then.
Each of the candidates likely hopes for a good performance on Super Tuesday, forcing the other three to drop out and giving them a chance to take on Sanders alone. But it won’t work. If they wait that long, Sanders will probably have accumulated such a significant delegate lead that it won’t matter. Polls show Sanders leading in delegate-rich Texas and California. FiveThirtyEight’s forecast believes Sanders is about four times more likely than the next closest candidate (Biden) to win the nomination.
To be clear, it’s not that the “moderates” must unify in the interest of stopping Bernie Sanders. They need to unify to help themselves, and the voters who support them. If they really believe their approach has a better chance of beating Trump than Sanders’s, this may be the only way.
It’s a matter of strategy. The longer each “moderate” stays in the race, the worse all of their chances. And though pundits are beginning to sound the alarm, expecting the deadlock to break up on its own is a mistake. Even if three of the “moderate” candidates drop out soon, it won’t be enough. Only concerted, headline-making, collective action will work, which is why the “moderate” candidates should set their egos aside, join forces, and take unprecedented steps.
Here’s how it could work. After Super Tuesday, the three candidates who are worst positioned to win the nominations end their campaigns and endorse the fourth. Each of the three who bow out should be promised a cabinet seat or other significant role within the administration if they want it. Maybe one is even promised the vice-presidential slot, but the nominee could also try to bring a candidate who has dropped out, like Cory Booker, or another popular national figure like Stacey Abrams. It’s easy to imagine some appealing tickets like Klobuchar-Booker or Biden-Abrams.
The campaigns could also merge their staffs, resources, and ground games to the extent possible. Combining Biden’s resonance with black voters, Klobuchar’s Midwestern appeal, Buttigieg’s campaign strategy, and even Bloomberg’s billions to support one candidate would create an extremely formidable campaign. Of course, all of these candidates can spend weeks or months arguing over who deserves to lead the ticket, but this is not the time for selfishness.
None of this is to say that such an approach would definitely prevent Sanders from winning the primary. Or that his nomination would be a disaster on anything resembling the scale of George W. Bush’s presidency. That said, this is the most important election of any of our lifetimes. A second Trump term would be a catastrophe for the nation and the world. The historical evidence cuts in favor of nominating a more moderate candidate.
Ralph Nader could not foresee his impact on the 2000 race when he launched his campaign. But as Election Day neared, and it was clear he might be a spoiler, he had options. He could have approached Gore’s campaign and offered to bow out of the race and endorse him in exchange for certain concessions to advance his agenda. It wouldn’t have been an easy choice, but in hindsight, it may have been the right one. Of course, leadership entails doing what’s difficult, especially when it is hard.
The moderate Democrats running for president are at a similar crossroads now. If Pete, Amy, Joe, and Mike truly believe that any one of them would be a better nominee than Sanders, they must decide whether they’d rather let things play out on their own and watch Sanders win, or set their egos aside and join forces so that one of them has a real chance.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-20--Senate Republicans From Swing States Look Vulnerable

Conventional wisdom has long suggested that an incumbent running for re-election with an approval rating below 50 percent is in trouble .
If that is true , several Republican senators representing swing states look pretty vulnerable right now .
According to recent state polls , here is where they stand on approval ratings .
Those are the four states that the website 270toWin lists as toss-ups .
Where the same polls include a head-to-head matchup with a Democratic opponent , here are the results : We still have a long way to go until November , but none of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have their Senate majority threatened if those results held .
A group called “ Payback Project ” has expanded the group they are targeting to 10—adding David Perdue of Georgia , Kelly Loeffler of Georgia , Joni Ernst of Iowa , Mitch McConnell of Kentucky , Lindsey Graham of South Carolina , and John Cornyn of Texas .
With all of the attention being split between the latest outrage from Trump and the uncertainty of the Democratic primary , it is important to keep in mind that what happens in the Senate is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Here is what Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii suggests that you can do with this information :

Conventional wisdom has long suggested that an incumbent running for re-election with an approval rating below 50 percent is in trouble. If that is true, several Republican senators representing swing states look pretty vulnerable right now. According to recent state polls, here is where they stand on approval ratings.
Susan Collins of Maine: 42 percent
Martha McSally of Arizona: 43 percent
Thom Tillis of North Carolina: 38 percent
Cory Gardner of Colorado: 37 percent
Those are the four states that the website 270toWin lists as toss-ups. Where the same polls include a head-to-head matchup with a Democratic opponent, here are the results:
Sara Gideon (D) 43%, Susan Collins (R) 42%
Mark Kelly (D) 46%, Martha McSally (R) 39%
Democratic candidate 51%, Cory Gardner (R) 40%
We still have a long way to go until November, but none of that is encouraging for Republicans, who would have their Senate majority threatened if those results held.
A group called “Payback Project” has expanded the group they are targeting to 10—adding David Perdue of Georgia, Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and John Cornyn of Texas.
With all of the attention being split between the latest outrage from Trump and the uncertainty of the Democratic primary, it is important to keep in mind that what happens in the Senate is just as important as the presidential contest.
Here is what Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii suggests that you can do with this information:


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-19--How the Trump Administration Is Further Traumatizing Child Refugees

Everything about the Trump administration ’ s treatment of asylum-seeking children is deplorable .
They have been separated from their families , locked in cages , used as bait to trap undocumented immigrants , sexually abused , and tagged as dangerous gang members .
For many of these young people , that comes on the heels of the kind of trauma that led them to seek asylum in the first place .
That order is what led Kevin and his sister to flee Honduras in search of asylum in the United States .
But since he was captured by border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 850 days in detention , being transferred from a shelter for children to what amounts to a prison for adults .
Hannah Drier documented Kevin ’ s case extensively for the Washington Post in order to demonstrate the fact that the reason he remains in detention and has been transferred to increasingly punitive settings is because he trusted a therapist in his first placement at the shelter , who promised that what he told her would be kept confidential .
Instead , what Kevin confided to the therapist was relayed to ICE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether he would be granted asylum or deported back to Honduras .
Here is how ICE used the story quoted above from the therapist .
Drier explains that children arriving either unaccompanied or separated from their parents are placed in the custody of DHS ’ s Office of Refugee Resettlement ( ORR ) .
A 1977 court-ordered settlement requires that those children see a therapist within the first 72 hours of being taken into custody and weekly thereafter , due to the trauma they likely experienced .
ORR initially began sharing information from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then in 2018 , they “ went a step further and entered into a formal Memorandum of Agreement with ICE to share details about children in its care.
” Jallyn Sualog , current deputy director for children ’ s programs at ORR , explained that “ ORR acts in the role of legal guardian for children in its custody , as de facto parents , with the right to see children ’ s records and share them as it sees fit.
” All of the therapists contacted by Drier confirmed that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be kept confidential .
Obviously , that was a betrayal .
At the time that Drier ’ s account was published , Kevin was still in detention .
She ends the piece with this conversation he had with his lawyer .
“ Lately , I have a lot of feelings , ” [ Kevin ] said .
He looked down .
He was on the verge of crying .
He picked at the fabric of his jumpsuit .
He mentioned the name of someone who worked at the detention center , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d gotten so lonely recently that he ’ d gone to see her .
“ But did you tell her anything ?
” Resek asked , trying not to show the alarm he was feeling .
“ Did you feel like it helped ?
” Resek asked .
“ Would you want to do more of it ?
” Kevin wiped at his eyes .
He was no longer naive , no longer frightened , and no longer younger .
He was 19 years old now and utterly alone .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what this administration is doing to children—in our name .

Everything about the Trump administration’s treatment of asylum-seeking children is deplorable. They have been separated from their families, locked in cages, used as bait to trap undocumented immigrants, sexually abused, and tagged as dangerous gang members. For many of these young people, that comes on the heels of the kind of trauma that led them to seek asylum in the first place.
Kevin explained that after his grandmother died, the gang MS-13 took over their shack. With nowhere else to go, he stayed, even as gang members tortured rivals on the patio, slept in his bed and made him run their errands. The gang eventually put him to work selling drugs…. gang leaders ordered Kevin to kill a stranger to prove his loyalty.
That order is what led Kevin and his sister to flee Honduras in search of asylum in the United States. But since he was captured by border patrol in Texas, he has spent over 850 days in detention, being transferred from a shelter for children to what amounts to a prison for adults.
Hannah Drier documented Kevin’s case extensively for the Washington Post in order to demonstrate the fact that the reason he remains in detention and has been transferred to increasingly punitive settings is because he trusted a therapist in his first placement at the shelter, who promised that what he told her would be kept confidential.
Instead, what Kevin confided to the therapist was relayed to ICE and weaponized during the hearings to determine whether he would be granted asylum or deported back to Honduras. Here is how ICE used the story quoted above from the therapist.
Youth reports history of physical abuse, neglect, and gang affiliation in country of origin. Unaccompanied child self-disclosed selling drugs. Unaccompanied child reports being part of witnessing torturing and killing, including dismemberment of body parts.
Drier explains that children arriving either unaccompanied or separated from their parents are placed in the custody of DHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). A 1977 court-ordered settlement requires that those children see a therapist within the first 72 hours of being taken into custody and weekly thereafter, due to the trauma they likely experienced.
ORR initially began sharing information from those therapy sessions with ICE in 2017. Then in 2018, they “went a step further and entered into a formal Memorandum of Agreement with ICE to share details about children in its care.” Jallyn Sualog, current deputy director for children’s programs at ORR, explained that “ORR acts in the role of legal guardian for children in its custody, as de facto parents, with the right to see children’s records and share them as it sees fit.” All of the therapists contacted by Drier confirmed that they told the children that what they said would be kept confidential. Obviously, that was a betrayal.
At the time that Drier’s account was published, Kevin was still in detention. She ends the piece with this conversation he had with his lawyer.
“Lately, I have a lot of feelings,” [Kevin] said. He looked down. He was on the verge of crying. He picked at the fabric of his jumpsuit. He mentioned the name of someone who worked at the detention center, a staff psychologist, and then said he’d gotten so lonely recently that he’d gone to see her. “But did you tell her anything?” Resek asked, trying not to show the alarm he was feeling. “No, “Kevin said. “No.” “Did you feel like it helped?” Resek asked. “Would you want to do more of it?” Kevin wiped at his eyes. He was no longer naive, no longer frightened, and no longer younger. He was 19 years old now and utterly alone. “I would.”
It is critical for all of us to understand what this administration is doing to children—in our name.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-19--Bernie Sanders and the Non-Voter Revolution

A new study of non-voters by the Knight Foundation confirms everything I thought I knew about the prospects for winning a presidential election through heightened voter mobilization .
Whatever the intrinsic merits of increased civic participation as an electoral strategy for the Democrats against Donald Trump , it is highly dubious .
The report examined 12,000 “ chronic non-voters in America , across the country and in key battleground states.
” Their bottom line finding is that if all these people went to the polls , the Democrats would increase their popular vote margin and lose the Electoral College even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the battleground states , my home base of Pennsylvania had the worst numbers .
Trump leads here with non-voters by a 36 percent to 28 percent margin .
This is consistent with my impression that most of the untapped vote in the Keystone State is composed of white voters who have little to no higher education .
A similar situation holds for Virginia , Florida , and Arizona .
Of the nine battleground states where the study questioned non-voters , only Georgia showed an advantage for a generic Democrat over Trump that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ margin of error .
Another suspicion of mine was confirmed too ; Bernie Sanders would fare best among this group largely because he ’ s not perceived as a typical Democrat and his calls for systemic change match the sentiments of non-voters .
It ’ s this sentiment that explains why Trump does so well with this group and it ’ s also why more conventional politicians , like Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney , have little appeal to them .
In [ Meagan ] Day ’ s estimation , Bernie Sanders , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who don ’ t typically vote because he has managed to put some distance between himself and the Democratic Party establishment .
“ There are a lot of people who like Donald Trump who don ’ t necessarily love the Republicans , ” she notes .
“ When we look at who doesn ’ t vote , we ’ re looking at people who are feeling alienated from the political process because they feel like there ’ s nothing on offer from them from either party .
And they don ’ t get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for them.
” …In a New York Times survey of swing state nonvoters , Sanders was the most popular Democrat , besting Trump by 4 percentage points , while Warren was actually 1 point less popular than Trump among nonvoters .
The same survey showed that between Democratic voters and nonvoters who favor Democrats , fewer nonvoters consider themselves “ very liberal ” or say they want a candidate who “ promises to fight for a bold progressive agenda , ” but more nonvoters than voting Democrats want a candidate who “ will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also showed that more Democratic-leaning nonvoters than Democratic voters in swing states support single-payer health care .
Armed with this data , perhaps it is easier to understand my point of view .
Winning Pennsylvania appears to be a prerequisite for a Democrat hoping to defeat Trump .
Bernie Sanders is using an approach that intuitively makes no sense in Pennsylvania , which is to trust in mobilizing low-proclivity voters to the polls using a populist approach that will hurt his performance badly in the suburbs where Democrats have been surging massively over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , low proclivity voters in Pennsylvania heavily favor Trump , so higher turnout is not going to help a generic Democrat .
Yet , Sanders is not a generic Democrat .
And , for this reason , he might be able to win here using this approach while other Democrats would fail .
Perhaps his best argument is that this election will have historically high turnout and he ’ s best positioned to compete for those votes in Pennsylvania .
But that ’ s highly speculative and tremendously risky .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to try because even if it were to succeed for Sanders it might not be a success for them .
This is what I tried to explain in my piece : Bernie ’ s Coalition Doesn ’ t Overlap With Dem ’ s House Majority .
The short version is that the Democrats have recently won scores of federal , state , and local races in the suburbs and those seats could be at risk if the top of the ticket underperforms .
The shape of the electorate matters a lot , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular vote and lose the election .
But Clinton actually lost the popular vote in Pennsylvania , which is why I began arguing immediately after the election that the Democrats needed to get away from a strategy that relied solely on the suburbs and instead focus on winning back some support in rural areas and small towns .
Sanders would create a test-case for that , but it ’ s really flying in the face of all the momentum the Democrats have made using the suburban approach .
A simple way of putting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say in how the country is polarized than any challenger could ever have .
His policies and behaviors have pushed suburbanites away from the GOP and given the Democrats a House majority based on their support .
The party needs to protect that majority and the new officeholders certainly prefer a strategy premised on winning over rather than alienating their constituents .
I ’ d prefer a left-wing coalition that is more in the FDR mold of representing working people first and foremost .
The country club folks could go back to complaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than their fair share rather than constituting the backbone of the Democratic majority .
But Trump doesn ’ t really allow this shape to take form , and the Democrats would be foolish to toss away easy seats in a theoretical effort to win difficult ones .
Those who believe in Sanders , trust that he can pull off a win by mobilizing non-voters .
They ’ re probably right that he ’ s the only Democrat running who has a chance at victory with this approach .
But non-voters in battleground states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this strategy looks perilous and it has a serious downside .
The downside is that a lot of Democratic officeholders do not see the strategy as serving their self-interest , which means many of them will reject it or try to keep their distance .
The cost comes in a lack of party unity , and it ’ s hard to measure how lack of unity might impact the campaign .
There is no absolutely safe strategy .
The Democrats could nominate a more mainstream candidate who is broadly liked in the suburbs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-voters turn out in November and swamp them at the polls .
But this strategy would also keep the party more united , and that counts for a lot .
None of this is really that complicated .
If the Democrats nominate a candidate who is not actually a Democrat , they ’ ll be splintered as a party but probably have more appeal to folks who don ’ t really like Democrats ( or Republicans ) in the first place .
I guess my biggest worry is that I have doubts about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they have not done in the past .
I have too much experience with people who suffer from addiction to believe that this is often a winning bet .

A new study of non-voters by the Knight Foundation confirms everything I thought I knew about the prospects for winning a presidential election through heightened voter mobilization. Whatever the intrinsic merits of increased civic participation as an electoral strategy for the Democrats against Donald Trump, it is highly dubious.
The report examined 12,000 “chronic non-voters in America, across the country and in key battleground states.” Their bottom line finding is that if all these people went to the polls, the Democrats would increase their popular vote margin and lose the Electoral College even more decisively than in 2016.
Of all the battleground states, my home base of Pennsylvania had the worst numbers. Trump leads here with non-voters by a 36 percent to 28 percent margin. This is consistent with my impression that most of the untapped vote in the Keystone State is composed of white voters who have little to no higher education. A similar situation holds for Virginia, Florida, and Arizona. Of the nine battleground states where the study questioned non-voters, only Georgia showed an advantage for a generic Democrat over Trump that is outside of the survey’s margin of error.
Another suspicion of mine was confirmed too; Bernie Sanders would fare best among this group largely because he’s not perceived as a typical Democrat and his calls for systemic change match the sentiments of non-voters. It’s this sentiment that explains why Trump does so well with this group and it’s also why more conventional politicians, like Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney, have little appeal to them.
In [Meagan] Day’s estimation, Bernie Sanders, like Trump, is appealing to people who don’t typically vote because he has managed to put some distance between himself and the Democratic Party establishment. “There are a lot of people who like Donald Trump who don’t necessarily love the Republicans,” she notes. “When we look at who doesn’t vote, we’re looking at people who are feeling alienated from the political process because they feel like there’s nothing on offer from them from either party. And they don’t get the sense that anybody wants to fight for them.” …In a New York Times survey of swing state nonvoters, Sanders was the most popular Democrat, besting Trump by 4 percentage points, while Warren was actually 1 point less popular than Trump among nonvoters. The same survey showed that between Democratic voters and nonvoters who favor Democrats, fewer nonvoters consider themselves “very liberal” or say they want a candidate who “promises to fight for a bold progressive agenda,” but more nonvoters than voting Democrats want a candidate who “will fundamentally change America.” The Times survey also showed that more Democratic-leaning nonvoters than Democratic voters in swing states support single-payer health care.
Armed with this data, perhaps it is easier to understand my point of view. Winning Pennsylvania appears to be a prerequisite for a Democrat hoping to defeat Trump. Bernie Sanders is using an approach that intuitively makes no sense in Pennsylvania, which is to trust in mobilizing low-proclivity voters to the polls using a populist approach that will hurt his performance badly in the suburbs where Democrats have been surging massively over the last four years. In general, low proclivity voters in Pennsylvania heavily favor Trump, so higher turnout is not going to help a generic Democrat.
Yet, Sanders is not a generic Democrat. And, for this reason, he might be able to win here using this approach while other Democrats would fail. Perhaps his best argument is that this election will have historically high turnout and he’s best positioned to compete for those votes in Pennsylvania.
But that’s highly speculative and tremendously risky. It’s also not something most Pennsylvania Democrats want to try because even if it were to succeed for Sanders it might not be a success for them. This is what I tried to explain in my piece: Bernie’s Coalition Doesn’t Overlap With Dem’s House Majority. The short version is that the Democrats have recently won scores of federal, state, and local races in the suburbs and those seats could be at risk if the top of the ticket underperforms. The shape of the electorate matters a lot, as we know from watching Clinton win the popular vote and lose the election.
But Clinton actually lost the popular vote in Pennsylvania, which is why I began arguing immediately after the election that the Democrats needed to get away from a strategy that relied solely on the suburbs and instead focus on winning back some support in rural areas and small towns. Sanders would create a test-case for that, but it’s really flying in the face of all the momentum the Democrats have made using the suburban approach.
A simple way of putting this is that Donald Trump has more say in how the country is polarized than any challenger could ever have. His policies and behaviors have pushed suburbanites away from the GOP and given the Democrats a House majority based on their support. The party needs to protect that majority and the new officeholders certainly prefer a strategy premised on winning over rather than alienating their constituents.
I’d prefer a left-wing coalition that is more in the FDR mold of representing working people first and foremost. The country club folks could go back to complaining about how the unwashed are getting more than their fair share rather than constituting the backbone of the Democratic majority. But Trump doesn’t really allow this shape to take form, and the Democrats would be foolish to toss away easy seats in a theoretical effort to win difficult ones.
Those who believe in Sanders, trust that he can pull off a win by mobilizing non-voters. They’re probably right that he’s the only Democrat running who has a chance at victory with this approach. But non-voters in battleground states are currently leaning to Trump, so this strategy looks perilous and it has a serious downside.
The downside is that a lot of Democratic officeholders do not see the strategy as serving their self-interest, which means many of them will reject it or try to keep their distance. The cost comes in a lack of party unity, and it’s hard to measure how lack of unity might impact the campaign.
There is no absolutely safe strategy. The Democrats could nominate a more mainstream candidate who is broadly liked in the suburbs and discover that way too many Trump-leaning non-voters turn out in November and swamp them at the polls. But this strategy would also keep the party more united, and that counts for a lot.
None of this is really that complicated. If the Democrats nominate a candidate who is not actually a Democrat, they’ll be splintered as a party but probably have more appeal to folks who don’t really like Democrats (or Republicans) in the first place.
I guess my biggest worry is that I have doubts about any strategy that depends on people doing what they have not done in the past. I have too much experience with people who suffer from addiction to believe that this is often a winning bet.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-20--The Trump Administration Is About to Put More Refugees In Harm’s Way

The Trump administration is once again trying to deport large swaths of people—including those who came to the U.S. at refugees—who risk persecution upon arriving in their nations of origin .
The U.S. and Laos reached an agreement in late 2019 for the small southeast Asian nation to receive an increased number of deportees from the U.S. , according to the Southeast Asian Deportation Defense Network , a coalition group of advocacy organizations .
There remains no official memorandum of understanding governing these deportations , as there are with Cambodia and Vietnam , but “ this verbal agreement makes those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable to removal , ” the group said .
U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum also publicized this agreement after writing a letter of opposition to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo .
Laos has long refused any agreement of this sort , arguing , as Cambodia once did , that it should not be forced to resettle people who came to the U.S. fleeing the Vietnam War as children and have no memory or knowledge of the country .
Still , Laos has accepted 219 deportees since 1998 due to the U.S. pressure ; only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House sanctioned the nation over the matter in late 2018 .
The U.S.-Laos relationship has a blood-stained history .
During the Vietnam War , the U.S. fought a secret anti-Communist war there , recruiting thousands of ethnic minority Hmong to take part in this effort .
The U.S.-allied Royal Lao government ruled Laos until the Communist Pathet Lao seized power in 1975 , soon after executing members of the Royal Lao family .
Since then , the ruling regime has persecuted the Hmong and targeted political opponents of all ethnicities—raising fears that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An I.C.E .
spokesperson told me in early February that 38 “ Laos nationals ” —a term that includes those who have not been to the country since childhood—with Final Orders of Removal are currently in detention .
There are currently 4,716 non-detained people with such orders , 4,086 of whom have criminal convictions .
It ’ s not clear how many of them are Hmong and how many came to escape the Vietnam War .
( I.C.E .
does not track deportees ’ ethnicity or former refugee status . )
Those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the country legally , many obtaining green cards .
But the U.S. has sought to deport those convicted of an aggravated felony , or any “ crime of violence ” ( a vague standard that has enabled the overturning of some deportations ) or theft or burglary , crimes that invalidate one ’ s green card .
Immigration law also allows for the compounding of two misdemeanors—such as petty theft and personal marijuana possession—into an aggravated felony that would strip one of one ’ s green card , thereby subjecting a person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. has accepted roughly 150,000 Hmong and 40,000 Lao refugees .
Advocates and scholars argue that the U.S. insufficiently resettled these refugees , leaving them ill-prepared for immediate work , unaccultured to the United States , and suffering psychosocial trauma .
As a consequence , many Laotian refugees slipped into cycles of poverty , which , in turn , contributed to their children ’ s drift toward criminality .
Hmong and Laotian communities—along with Cambodians—experience more poverty than other Asian-American groups .
In 2016 , for instance , 37.8 percent of Hmong and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were living in poverty , according to the Obama administration .
The American poverty rate hovers around 11 percent .
Nevertheless , the U.S. has for years detained Lao and Hmong people without green cards and with final orders of removal , seeking their deportation .
But because Laos does not have an official deportation agreement with the U.S. , immigration officials have been required under the law to release these people within 90 days , often under Department of Homeland Security “ orders of supervision.
” A new understanding with Laos would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 4,716 non-detained Laos nationals .
Chanida Phaengdara Potter , executive director of the SEAD Project , a Southeast Asian-American community development organization , told me the move “ will only further criminalize and impoverish fellow community members by separating them from their families and sending them to an unfamiliar country where their livelihoods will be challenged again .
They have human rights that are being denied by this administration and we should be appalled.
” The Trump administration has pursued similar policies in both Cambodia and Vietnam , ratcheting up the rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other means of pressure .
Those deported are also mainly refugees with little or no knowledge of the country to which they are sent ; many do not speak Khmer , Cambodia ’ s language , or Vietnamese .
This is the case in Laos as well : The U.S. government is even funding a “ reintegration program ” to assist those deported to Laos who do not speak Lao or have family connections , indicating that former refugees with no ties to Laos will be sent there .
But it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government will receive them warmly .
Because of the CIA ’ s activities there in the 1960s and the ruling regime ’ s fierce repression of political opponents , Laos still targets both the Hmong and people of other ethnicities with anti-communist ties—potentially including those deported from the U.S. “ For their privacy and safety , deportees have to stay under the radar , ” a Lao-American advocate told me , speaking anonymously for fear of retribution to those they know in Laos .
“ Enforced disappearances and imprisonment of specific groups , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tied to the former Lao Royal government , are based on their history and connection to this country ’ s past.
” The source added : “ There are real fears about survival in today ’ s Laos .
”

The Trump administration is once again trying to deport large swaths of people—including those who came to the U.S. as refugees—who risk persecution upon arriving in their nations of origin. The U.S. and Laos reached an agreement in late 2019 for the small southeast Asian nation to receive an increased number of deportees from the U.S., according to the Southeast Asian Deportation Defense Network, a coalition group of advocacy organizations.
There remains no official memorandum of understanding governing these deportations, as there are with Cambodia and Vietnam, but “this verbal agreement makes those with final orders for deportation potentially more vulnerable to removal,” the group said. U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum also publicized this agreement after writing a letter of opposition to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Laos has long refused any agreement of this sort, arguing, as Cambodia once did, that it should not be forced to resettle people who came to the U.S. fleeing the Vietnam War as children and have no memory or knowledge of the country. Still, Laos has accepted 219 deportees since 1998 due to the U.S. pressure; only five were deported in 2019 after the White House sanctioned the nation over the matter in late 2018.
The U.S.-Laos relationship has a blood-stained history. During the Vietnam War, the U.S. fought a secret anti-Communist war there, recruiting thousands of ethnic minority Hmong to take part in this effort. The U.S.-allied Royal Lao government ruled Laos until the Communist Pathet Lao seized power in 1975, soon after executing members of the Royal Lao family. Since then, the ruling regime has persecuted the Hmong and targeted political opponents of all ethnicities—raising fears that deportees’ safety could be jeopardy.
An I.C.E. spokesperson told me in early February that 38 “Laos nationals”—a term that includes those who have not been to the country since childhood—with Final Orders of Removal are currently in detention. There are currently 4,716 non-detained people with such orders, 4,086 of whom have criminal convictions. It’s not clear how many of them are Hmong and how many came to escape the Vietnam War. (I.C.E. does not track deportees’ ethnicity or former refugee status.)
Those who came to the U.S. as refugees lived in the country legally, many obtaining green cards. But the U.S. has sought to deport those convicted of an aggravated felony, or any “crime of violence” (a vague standard that has enabled the overturning of some deportations) or theft or burglary, crimes that invalidate one’s green card. Immigration law also allows for the compounding of two misdemeanors—such as petty theft and personal marijuana possession—into an aggravated felony that would strip one of one’s green card, thereby subjecting a person to deportation.
Since 1975, the U.S. has accepted roughly 150,000 Hmong and 40,000 Lao refugees. Advocates and scholars argue that the U.S. insufficiently resettled these refugees, leaving them ill-prepared for immediate work, unaccultured to the United States, and suffering psychosocial trauma. As a consequence, many Laotian refugees slipped into cycles of poverty, which, in turn, contributed to their children’s drift toward criminality. Hmong and Laotian communities—along with Cambodians—experience more poverty than other Asian-American groups. In 2016, for instance, 37.8 percent of Hmong and 18.5 percent of Lao in the U.S. were living in poverty, according to the Obama administration. The American poverty rate hovers around 11 percent.
Nevertheless, the U.S. has for years detained Lao and Hmong people without green cards and with final orders of removal, seeking their deportation. But because Laos does not have an official deportation agreement with the U.S., immigration officials have been required under the law to release these people within 90 days, often under Department of Homeland Security “orders of supervision.” A new understanding with Laos would allow the U.S. to pursue the deportation of 4,716 non-detained Laos nationals.
Chanida Phaengdara Potter, executive director of the SEAD Project, a Southeast Asian-American community development organization, told me the move “will only further criminalize and impoverish fellow community members by separating them from their families and sending them to an unfamiliar country where their livelihoods will be challenged again. They have human rights that are being denied by this administration and we should be appalled.”
The Trump administration has pursued similar policies in both Cambodia and Vietnam, ratcheting up the rate of deportations to both countries through sanctions and other means of pressure. Those deported are also mainly refugees with little or no knowledge of the country to which they are sent; many do not speak Khmer, Cambodia’s language, or Vietnamese.
This is the case in Laos as well: The U.S. government is even funding a “reintegration program” to assist those deported to Laos who do not speak Lao or have family connections, indicating that former refugees with no ties to Laos will be sent there.
But it’s far from clear that the Laos government will receive them warmly. Because of the CIA’s activities there in the 1960s and the ruling regime’s fierce repression of political opponents, Laos still targets both the Hmong and people of other ethnicities with anti-communist ties—potentially including those deported from the U.S.
“For their privacy and safety, deportees have to stay under the radar,” a Lao-American advocate told me, speaking anonymously for fear of retribution to those they know in Laos. “Enforced disappearances and imprisonment of specific groups, whether they are marginalized ethnic minorities or tied to the former Lao Royal government, are based on their history and connection to this country’s past.”
The source added: “There are real fears about survival in today’s Laos.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-20--The Nevada Debate Was Entertaining and Revealing

John Podhoretz of the New York Post thought Wednesday ’ s Democratic caucus debate in Nevada was the best debate in human history .
It ’ s a sign of something that I ’ m inclined to agree with him , even if it ’ s probably for different reasons .
I think Podhoretz just enjoyed watching the Democrats fight , especially because they were landing haymakers against each other .
For him , it ’ s the guilty pleasure of an anti-Trump conservative .
I agree that the entertainment value was sky high , but the worth I got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It really exposed my feelings about these candidates , all of whom displease or disappoint me to a degree I hadn ’ t fully understood until I saw how much I enjoyed watching them be pummeled .
But it was deeper than that .
As much as I enjoyed watching Michael Bloomberg get carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey or Sanders take incoming over the behavior of his supporters and staff , and as satisfying as it was for Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop their Mr. and Mrs. Nice act and let their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enjoyed was seeing the candidates let their emotions and values drive their performance .
Like most everyone else , I ’ ve grown tired of watching Sanders deliver the same old lines in debate after debate , but having Bloomberg beside him as the personification of everything he loathes really brought out a fresh passion in him and let us see how deeply he believes in what he ’ s saying .
Bloomberg ’ s presence did much the same thing for Warren , who unleashed every bit of bottled-up outrage she had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no one on the stage .
Podhoretz compared her performance to Machine Gun Kelly , and that ’ s pretty accurate .
However , her aim was excellent .
She brought immediate energy to the stage , which rubbed off on Joe Biden .
He appeared fully awake for this debate for the first time and was much more assertive and confident in making a case for himself .
Having Bloomberg as a foil seemed to finally give him the focus to explain his candidacy ’ s rationale with convincing passion .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Buttigieg , who has been making progress by sounding nice and reasonable compared to his opponents .
But he evidently blames Klobuchar ’ s surge in New Hampshire for denying him a victory there and he went after her without mercy .
At one point , she turned to him and asked , “ Are you mocking me here , Pete ?
” He most certainly was , and it was more revealing than another night of the scripted platitudes he usually provides .
Klobuchar was thrown badly off-script , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearer picture of what she ’ s like in real life .
Her temper flared as she struggled to explain why she couldn ’ t name the president of Mexico , which isn ’ t surprising given what her staff has said about her insecurities .
Having her intelligence and base of knowledge mocked on national television caused her to drop her mask , and it basically killed the credibility of her scripted closing argument about more uniting the Democrats than dividing them .
A lot of the commentariat was somewhere between disconcerted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debate , but I thought it was tremendously revealing .
More than any debate I can remember watching , we got to see behind all the posturing and strategizing that usually makes debates nothing more than performative art .
It takes a monumental amount of ambition and self-conceit to think you should be president and it ’ s a good thing to see people drop the nice act and bring out the knives in an effort to win .
But it was more than just seeing the candidates act like they really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let their emotions rule them for a change , they gave us a better picture of the kind of issues and values that drive them .
Telling politicians to “ just be yourself ” is rarely the best advice , and several of the candidates on the stage Wednesday night did themselves no favors .
But the voters got more than they bargained for , and they ’ re better equipped to make a decision on whom they want to support .
Isn ’ t that best outcome from a presidential debate ?

John Podhoretz of the New York Post thought Wednesday’s Democratic caucus debate in Nevada was the best debate in human history. It’s a sign of something that I’m inclined to agree with him, even if it’s probably for different reasons.
I think Podhoretz just enjoyed watching the Democrats fight, especially because they were landing haymakers against each other. For him, it’s the guilty pleasure of an anti-Trump conservative. I agree that the entertainment value was sky high, but the worth I got out of it was more cathartic.
It really exposed my feelings about these candidates, all of whom displease or disappoint me to a degree I hadn’t fully understood until I saw how much I enjoyed watching them be pummeled.
But it was deeper than that. As much as I enjoyed watching Michael Bloomberg get carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey or Sanders take incoming over the behavior of his supporters and staff, and as satisfying as it was for Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop their Mr. and Mrs. Nice act and let their raw ambition shine, what I really enjoyed was seeing the candidates let their emotions and values drive their performance.
Like most everyone else, I’ve grown tired of watching Sanders deliver the same old lines in debate after debate, but having Bloomberg beside him as the personification of everything he loathes really brought out a fresh passion in him and let us see how deeply he believes in what he’s saying. Bloomberg’s presence did much the same thing for Warren, who unleashed every bit of bottled-up outrage she had in her reservoir. And she spared no one on the stage. Podhoretz compared her performance to Machine Gun Kelly, and that’s pretty accurate. However, her aim was excellent.
She brought immediate energy to the stage, which rubbed off on Joe Biden. He appeared fully awake for this debate for the first time and was much more assertive and confident in making a case for himself. Having Bloomberg as a foil seemed to finally give him the focus to explain his candidacy’s rationale with convincing passion.
The constant bloodletting on the stage was ill-suited for Buttigieg, who has been making progress by sounding nice and reasonable compared to his opponents. But he evidently blames Klobuchar’s surge in New Hampshire for denying him a victory there and he went after her without mercy. At one point, she turned to him and asked, “Are you mocking me here, Pete?” He most certainly was, and it was more revealing than another night of the scripted platitudes he usually provides.
Klobuchar was thrown badly off-script, and the result was that people got a much clearer picture of what she’s like in real life. Her temper flared as she struggled to explain why she couldn’t name the president of Mexico, which isn’t surprising given what her staff has said about her insecurities.
Ms. Klobuchar’s exasperation often appeared connected to two factors: an abiding fear of being embarrassed in front of colleagues or in the press and the conviction that she works harder than her staff.
Having her intelligence and base of knowledge mocked on national television caused her to drop her mask, and it basically killed the credibility of her scripted closing argument about more uniting the Democrats than dividing them.
A lot of the commentariat was somewhere between disconcerted and horrified by the overall incivility of the debate, but I thought it was tremendously revealing. More than any debate I can remember watching, we got to see behind all the posturing and strategizing that usually makes debates nothing more than performative art. It takes a monumental amount of ambition and self-conceit to think you should be president and it’s a good thing to see people drop the nice act and bring out the knives in an effort to win. But it was more than just seeing the candidates act like they really care about their campaigns. When they let their emotions rule them for a change, they gave us a better picture of the kind of issues and values that drive them.
Telling politicians to “just be yourself” is rarely the best advice, and several of the candidates on the stage Wednesday night did themselves no favors. But the voters got more than they bargained for, and they’re better equipped to make a decision on whom they want to support.
Isn’t that best outcome from a presidential debate?


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-20--Is Warren Willing to Fight for the Democratic Nomination?

Other than having a plan for everything , Elizabeth Warren has centered her campaign on her willingness to fight .
For example , during a previous debate , she summarized by saying , “ I know what ’ s broken .
I know how to fix it .
And I ’ m going to lead the fight to get it done.
” During Wednesday night ’ s debate , Warren demonstrated her fighting skills by taking on Michael Bloomberg .
She came out of the gate with a devastating blow .
Allyson Chiu describes how it went from there .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments Bloomberg allegedly made about women to her relentless questioning of the nondisclosure agreements signed by his former employees , Warren orchestrated what has been described as “ one of the most precise and devastating political attacks ” on a debate stage in recent memory .
Over the course of the two-hour event , Bloomberg , who spoke for just over 13 minutes and struggled at times to defend himself , was targeted by his opponents 45 times , according to NBC News .
Warren was behind 11 of those instances , NBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debates matter ( which is still an open question ) the candidate who went into this one with momentum—Michael Bloomberg—will stall out .
On the flip side , Warren might have revitalized her sagging campaign .
But Warren didn ’ t just train her sights on Bloomberg .
She called Buttigieg ’ s health care plan a “ PowerPoint ” and suggested that Klobuchar ’ s is a “ post-it note.
” In other words , she took the fight to other competitors as well .
However , as she ’ s done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it came to Bernie Sanders .
Early on in the debate , she suggested that he should take responsibility for the vicious attacks his supporters launched on members of the Culinary Union , but other than that , she kept her powder dry .
It was actually Mayor Pete who effectively took on both Bloomberg and Sanders by saying that Democrats shouldn ’ t nominate a candidate who wants to burn the party down ( Sanders ) or one who wants to buy it out ( Bloomberg ) .
He effectively made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders .
It isn ’ t merely the fact that she doesn ’ t share his antipathy for the Democratic Party .
As I suggested previously , she has shown an awareness of what it takes to govern as the chief executive in a democracy .
The fact of the matter is that Bernie Sanders is currently the front-runner in the Democratic primary .
He especially stands in the way of Warren ’ s path to the nomination , because their proposals have more in common .
In order to open a path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to clarify why she is the better choice between the two .
During Wednesday ’ s debate , Warren demonstrated that she can be downright feisty .
She did so by taking on the other candidates directly , which was a welcome change from her previous passive-aggressive attacks on their motivations ( ie , they “ don ’ t have the courage to fight off the powerful interests.
” ) But if Warren really wants to stay in this race and make herself competitive , she ’ s going to have to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letting everyone know why she would be a better choice than Bernie Sanders .
Is she willing to take on that fight ?
We ’ ll see .

Other than having a plan for everything, Elizabeth Warren has centered her campaign on her willingness to fight. For example, during a previous debate, she summarized by saying, “I know what’s broken. I know how to fix it. And I’m going to lead the fight to get it done.”
During Wednesday night’s debate, Warren demonstrated her fighting skills by taking on Michael Bloomberg. She came out of the gate with a devastating blow.
Allyson Chiu describes how it went from there.
From her scathing opening remarks denouncing derogatory comments Bloomberg allegedly made about women to her relentless questioning of the nondisclosure agreements signed by his former employees, Warren orchestrated what has been described as“one of the most precise and devastating political attacks”on a debate stage in recent memory. Over the course of the two-hour event, Bloomberg, who spoke for just over 13 minutes and struggled at times to defend himself, was targeted by his opponents 45 times, according to NBC News. Warren was behind 11 of those instances, NBC reported.
To the extent that these debates matter (which is still an open question) the candidate who went into this one with momentum—Michael Bloomberg—will stall out. On the flip side, Warren might have revitalized her sagging campaign.
But Warren didn’t just train her sights on Bloomberg. She called Buttigieg’s health care plan a “PowerPoint” and suggested that Klobuchar’s is a “post-it note.” In other words, she took the fight to other competitors as well. However, as she’s done in previous debates, Warren held back when it came to Bernie Sanders. Early on in the debate, she suggested that he should take responsibility for the vicious attacks his supporters launched on members of the Culinary Union, but other than that, she kept her powder dry.
It was actually Mayor Pete who effectively took on both Bloomberg and Sanders by saying that Democrats shouldn’t nominate a candidate who wants to burn the party down (Sanders) or one who wants to buy it out (Bloomberg). He effectively made the case for what distinguishes Warren from Sanders. It isn’t merely the fact that she doesn’t share his antipathy for the Democratic Party. As I suggested previously, she has shown an awareness of what it takes to govern as the chief executive in a democracy.
The fact of the matter is that Bernie Sanders is currently the front-runner in the Democratic primary. He especially stands in the way of Warren’s path to the nomination, because their proposals have more in common. In order to open a path for her candidacy, Warren will need to clarify why she is the better choice between the two.
During Wednesday’s debate, Warren demonstrated that she can be downright feisty. She did so by taking on the other candidates directly, which was a welcome change from her previous passive-aggressive attacks on their motivations (ie, they “don’t have the courage to fight off the powerful interests.”)
But if Warren really wants to stay in this race and make herself competitive, she’s going to have to be direct and feisty when it comes to letting everyone know why she would be a better choice than Bernie Sanders. Is she willing to take on that fight? We’ll see.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-21--Clemency: A Minefield of Quid Pro Quos for Trump to Exploit

From early on in his presidency , Trump ’ s approach to both domestic politics and foreign policy has been described as “ transactional.
” The Ukraine extortion scheme highlighted how that works .
It ’ s all about quid pro quos .
What we saw was that not only did the president withhold a White House meeting and military aid in an attempt to get Zelensky to announce investigations into his political rivals , it appears as though he engaged in a quid pro quo with Zelensky ’ s predecessor , Petro Poroshenko , where Javelin anti-tank missiles were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Once that deal was done , Trump attempted another quid pro quo with Poroshenko : support for the Ukrainian president ’ s re-election in exchange for the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens .
Trump also solicited lies from corrupt Ukrainians in exchange for getting rid of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch .
The picture all of that paints is that the president ’ s strategy for getting what he wants ( i.e.
, support for himself or attacks on his enemies ) , is centered on offering to do something for anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to him .
Keep that in mind as the possibility of pardons for Trump associates like Stone and Manafort are discussed .
If they happen , they are quid pro quos too .
The message is : keep quiet and I ’ ll get you off the hook .
That is what is alarming about Trump ’ s latest fascination with clemency .
Apparently , the news this week about his pardons was just the beginning .
The White House is moving to take more direct control over pardons and commutations , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Justice Department in the clemency process as he weighs a flurry of additional pardon announcements , according to people familiar with the matter .
Trump , who granted clemency Tuesday to a group of 11 people that included several political allies and supporters , has assembled a team of advisers to recommend and vet candidates for pardons , according to several people with knowledge of the matter who , like others , spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations .
The assembled team of advisors will be led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the only people Trump trusts because he has basically been put in charge of everything .
Also playing a major role in this advisory group is former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi .
In addition to her role on the president ’ s defense team during the Senate impeachment trial , Bondi gained national attention over a potential quid pro quo with Trump .
While serving as Florida ’ s attorney general back in 2013 , a Bondi spokesperson announced that she was reviewing the possibility of joining New York Attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump University .
Three days later , a committee that acted as Bondi ’ s fundraising arm for her re-election campaign received a check for $ 25,000 from the Trump Foundation .
Bondi never said another word about joining Schneiderman ’ s lawsuit .
Six months later , Trump hosted a fundraiser for Bondi at Mar-a-Lago .
Of course , Bondi says that her decision on the Trump University lawsuit had nothing to do with the fundraiser or the $ 25,000 donation .
But because the latter came from Trump ’ s Foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , the foundation dissolved after an investigation by the New York attorney general uncovered a “ shocking pattern of illegality.
” Eventually , Trump was forced to pay $ 2 million to eight charities as part of a settlement over the foundation ’ s misuse of funds .
Was Pam Bondi involved in a quid pro quo with Donald Trump ?
We have no way of knowing for sure , but the evidence certainly points in that direction .
She , along with Kushner , will now be heading up the team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grant of clemency from the president , with no review from what used to be an independent DOJ .
That presents a veritable minefield of potential quid pro quos for Trump to exploit .
The idea of this being a nation of laws , not men , is about to take another flush down the drain .

From early on in his presidency, Trump’s approach to both domestic politics and foreign policy has been described as “transactional.” The Ukraine extortion scheme highlighted how that works. It’s all about quid pro quos.
What we saw was that not only did the president withhold a White House meeting and military aid in an attempt to get Zelensky to announce investigations into his political rivals, it appears as though he engaged in a quid pro quo with Zelensky’s predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, where Javelin anti-tank missiles were traded for dropping investigations into Paul Manafort. Once that deal was done, Trump attempted another quid pro quo with Poroshenko: support for the Ukrainian president’s re-election in exchange for the announcement of an investigation into the Bidens. Trump also solicited lies from corrupt Ukrainians in exchange for getting rid of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.
The picture all of that paints is that the president’s strategy for getting what he wants (i.e., support for himself or attacks on his enemies), is centered on offering to do something for anyone who’s willing to give it to him. Keep that in mind as the possibility of pardons for Trump associates like Stone and Manafort are discussed. If they happen, they are quid pro quos too. The message is: keep quiet and I’ll get you off the hook.
That is what is alarming about Trump’s latest fascination with clemency. Apparently, the news this week about his pardons was just the beginning.
The White House is moving to take more direct control over pardons and commutations, with President Trump aiming to limit the role of the Justice Department in the clemency process as he weighs a flurry of additional pardon announcements, according to people familiar with the matter. Trump, who granted clemency Tuesday to a group of 11 people that included several political allies and supporters, has assembled a team of advisers to recommend and vet candidates for pardons, according to several people with knowledge of the matter who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
The assembled team of advisors will be led by Jared Kushner. He is obviously one of the only people Trump trusts because he has basically been put in charge of everything. Also playing a major role in this advisory group is former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.
In addition to her role on the president’s defense team during the Senate impeachment trial, Bondi gained national attention over a potential quid pro quo with Trump. While serving as Florida’s attorney general back in 2013, a Bondi spokesperson announced that she was reviewing the possibility of joining New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s lawsuit against Trump University. Three days later, a committee that acted as Bondi’s fundraising arm for her re-election campaign received a check for $25,000 from the Trump Foundation. Bondi never said another word about joining Schneiderman’s lawsuit. Six months later, Trump hosted a fundraiser for Bondi at Mar-a-Lago.
Of course, Bondi says that her decision on the Trump University lawsuit had nothing to do with the fundraiser or the $25,000 donation. But because the latter came from Trump’s Foundation, it violated tax laws. In 2018, the foundation dissolved after an investigation by the New York attorney general uncovered a “shocking pattern of illegality.” Eventually, Trump was forced to pay $2 million to eight charities as part of a settlement over the foundation’s misuse of funds.
Was Pam Bondi involved in a quid pro quo with Donald Trump? We have no way of knowing for sure, but the evidence certainly points in that direction. She, along with Kushner, will now be heading up the team that decides who is considered for a grant of clemency from the president, with no review from what used to be an independent DOJ. That presents a veritable minefield of potential quid pro quos for Trump to exploit.
The idea of this being a nation of laws, not men, is about to take another flush down the drain.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-21--Could Overseas Voters Be the Democrats’ Secret Weapon in 2020?

Ahead of the 2020 election , everyone wants to know one thing : What will make the difference between Donald Trump winning or losing a second term ?
Polling suggests that health care , the economy , and immigration are the issues voters care most about .
And for many Americans , the erratic and destructive nature of Trump ’ s presidency itself is a galvanizing force .
But there ’ s another factor that has barely made headlines—the potentially potent influence of the overseas vote .
In 2016 , for instance , there were roughly three million Americans living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to data from the Federal Voting Assistance Program ( FVAP ) .
Yet in the presidential election , only seven percent of these voters actually cast a ballot .
It ’ s not clear what states those citizens are registered in , but while Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million votes , she lost by thin margins in swing states like Michigan , Wisconsin , and New Hampshire .
In other words , the 2.7 million voters abroad who sat out the last presidential election had the power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those voters may not be as hands-off .
Experts cite a number of factors that explain the historically low participation rate of overseas voters—like complicated registration systems and a lack of government outreach—but the 2020 election could be different for the simple fact that the reality of a Donald Trump presidency will inspire more Americans abroad to vote .
In the leadup to the election , the Democrats have an organized effort to mobilize Democratic voters living in other countries , whereas the GOP doesn ’ t have a comparable organization .
Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arm abroad .
Every four years , it holds a “ global primary ” and sends delegates to the Democratic National Convention .
Significantly , the group is virtually the only voter turnout drive focused on targeting liberal Americans living outside the United States .
Its goal in 2020 : to get a million overseas voters to cast a ballot .
That ’ s not an idea that comes from nowhere .
Overseas voters have helped decide an election before .
In 2000 , both George W. Bush ’ s and Al Gore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a small number of absentee ballots in Florida that were mailed from outside the U.S. As the New York Times reported in 2001 , when Bush ’ s unofficial lead was around 300 votes at the start of the 18-day recount , the two camps relied heavily on overseas absentee ballots .
Bush ’ s campaign tried to validate the highest number of ballots possible in counties he had already won while seeking to disqualify overseas ballots in counties Gore was leading in .
It seems to have worked .
The Times found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP , Florida officials “ accepted hundreds of overseas absentee ballots that failed to comply with state laws.
” The analysis of 2,490 votes found that Florida accepted 680 questionable votes—either from ballots without postmarks or postmarked after Election Day ; ballots mailed from U.S. cities and states ; or even ballots from voters who voted twice .
Bush ultimately won the Florida contest by 537 votes .
Tight races like Florida ’ s send a message to Democrats Abroad , said Julia Bryan , the group ’ s global chair .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ margin for electoral victory , so races can be decided by an incredibly small number of ballots .
In 2020 , Bryan said the organization wants to “ make sure Florida is blue ” and help Democrats win tight-margin races in Arizona , Michigan , Wisconsin , and Ohio .
“ We are the margin of victory for these tight races in states like Florida , ” she said .
But there is one problem—there ’ s no reliable , authoritative data for overseas voters , making the work of mobilization all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around two million Americans live abroad ; a State Department report from 2015 places that number at nine million .
FVAP data falls in between—at about 5.7 million .
There are also discrepancies when it comes to how many ballots are cast : FVAP—which bases its data on statistical modeling—estimates 200,000 ballots cast in the 2016 election , but data from the Election Administration and Voting Survey ( EAVS ) is higher , at 380,000 .
“ That ’ s the big challenge : there ’ s no one national , one central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is freely shared , ” FVAP Director David Beirne told me .
“ That ’ s just the nature of the beast.
” For a long time , many observers assumed overseas voters—especially those deployed in the military—leaned Republican , said Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels , a reader in migration and politics at the Brussels School of International Studies of the University of Kent .
More recent numbers , however , may suggest a more Democratic tilt .
In North Carolina , a state with a substantial military population , 44 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats in 2016 , while only 21 percent came from registered Republicans .
At just seven percent , the overseas voting rate in 2016 was minimal .
Even then , it had risen two percent from 2012 , when only five percent of eligible voters cast a ballot .
FVAP estimates the 2014 voting rate at an even lower number—just four percent .
Bryan and Klekowski von Koppenfels suspect that turnout will increase again in 2020 , which will likely benefit Democrats .
“ We ’ re living in countries where we expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Bryan said .
“ This is just normal to us , it ’ s everyday life .
Even the Republicans I know in Prague would never want their health care taken away.
” All in all , there are millions of Americans abroad who could potentially be a deciding factor in ousting Donald Trump .
They may just be the Democratic Party ’ s secret weapon in 2020 .
The issue of the overseas voters first gained traction on Capitol Hill in the 1960s , when a group of American expatriates in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Congress ultimately granted overseas citizens the right to vote absentee in 1975 , after members of the military stationed outside the U.S. had been granted the same right some years earlier .
Then , in 1986 , lawmakers unified both sets of laws into the Uniformed And Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act .
The legislation was overwhelmingly bipartisan .
Michael Hanmer , a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland , said a reason for this is the legislation ’ s focus on military voters .
“ It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials who are going to do things that might disenfranchise members of the military , ” Hanmer said .
Today , overseas registrations and ballot requests are completed yearly through an online form and allow citizens to vote in the state where they last resided , regardless of whether they plan to return .
Thirty-eight states also allow for citizens who have never lived in the U.S. to vote based on their parents ’ last residence .
Beyond Democrats Abroad , there are non-partisan organizations that are trying to ensure Americans living overseas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ franchise , such as the U.S. Vote Foundation and American Citizens Abroad .
Still , there is only one group really engaged in the rough-and-tumble of partisan politics overseas .
This summer , DA will send 21 delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee as members of the 51st state .
In 2016 , one of its delegates was Larry Sanders , who lives in the U.K. and cast his ballot for his brother , Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders .
The Senator himself has participated in virtual town halls for DA , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But Sanders appears to be popular abroad .
Among the nearly 35,000 overseas Democrats who cast their ballots in the 2016 primary , 69 percent sided with Sanders while 31 percent voted for Hillary Clinton .
Bryan has said one of the best ways to ensure Democrats overseas vote is to first get them to join her organization as members .
( The group ’ s membership rate doubled after the 2016 election , she said . )
One of these voters is Rebecca Alvarado .
A graduate student at the University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Germany to American parents .
She ’ s eligible to vote in her father ’ s home state of Colorado , which she ’ s been doing since 2012 .
Alvarado attended her first Democrats Abroad meeting in early February .
Attendance , she said , had more than doubled from the previous one , which the organizers chalked up to the Iowa caucus fiasco earlier that week .
“ I finally felt like I can get involved and do something , ” she said , “ because up until now it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ box , or not even a ballot box , me and the post box.
” Notably , the GOP doesn ’ t have an official arm dedicated to supporting overseas voters—or increasing voter turnout .
Republicans Abroad , an organization similar to DA , ceased operations in 2013 , and was replaced by Republicans Overseas , which mainly works to raise awareness of the tax situation Americans find themselves in abroad , said Solomon Yue , the organization ’ s vice-chair and CEO .
Voter outreach for the GOP is handled country-by-country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different approach .
Bryan said her team is working to activate constituencies across the world through digital targeting .
For many Democrats , getting rid of Trump is a priority .
It may take a global effort to make it happen .

Ahead of the 2020 election, everyone wants to know one thing: What will make the difference between Donald Trump winning or losing a second term? Polling suggests that health care, the economy, and immigration are the issues voters care most about. And for many Americans, the erratic and destructive nature of Trump’s presidency itself is a galvanizing force. But there’s another factor that has barely made headlines—the potentially potent influence of the overseas vote.
In 2016, for instance, there were roughly three million Americans living abroad who were eligible to vote, according to data from the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). Yet in the presidential election, only seven percent of these voters actually cast a ballot.
It’s not clear what states those citizens are registered in, but while Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million votes, she lost by thin margins in swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire. In other words, the 2.7 million voters abroad who sat out the last presidential election had the power to make a difference.
This year, those voters may not be as hands-off. Experts cite a number of factors that explain the historically low participation rate of overseas voters—like complicated registration systems and a lack of government outreach—but the 2020 election could be different for the simple fact that the reality of a Donald Trump presidency will inspire more Americans abroad to vote. In the leadup to the election, the Democrats have an organized effort to mobilize Democratic voters living in other countries, whereas the GOP doesn’t have a comparable organization.
Democrats Abroad is the party’s official arm abroad. Every four years, it holds a “global primary” and sends delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Significantly, the group is virtually the only voter turnout drive focused on targeting liberal Americans living outside the United States. Its goal in 2020: to get a million overseas voters to cast a ballot.
That’s not an idea that comes from nowhere. Overseas voters have helped decide an election before. In 2000, both George W. Bush’s and Al Gore’s campaigns hinged their victories on a small number of absentee ballots in Florida that were mailed from outside the U.S.
As the New York Times reported in 2001, when Bush’s unofficial lead was around 300 votes at the start of the 18-day recount, the two camps relied heavily on overseas absentee ballots. Bush’s campaign tried to validate the highest number of ballots possible in counties he had already won while seeking to disqualify overseas ballots in counties Gore was leading in.
It seems to have worked. The Times found that when faced with intense pressure from the GOP, Florida officials “accepted hundreds of overseas absentee ballots that failed to comply with state laws.” The analysis of 2,490 votes found that Florida accepted 680 questionable votes—either from ballots without postmarks or postmarked after Election Day; ballots mailed from U.S. cities and states; or even ballots from voters who voted twice. Bush ultimately won the Florida contest by 537 votes.
Tight races like Florida’s send a message to Democrats Abroad, said Julia Bryan, the group’s global chair. The Sunshine State has a 0.5 percent margin for electoral victory, so races can be decided by an incredibly small number of ballots. In 2020, Bryan said the organization wants to “make sure Florida is blue” and help Democrats win tight-margin races in Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio. “We are the margin of victory for these tight races in states like Florida,” she said.
But there is one problem—there’s no reliable, authoritative data for overseas voters, making the work of mobilization all the more difficult. The World Bank estimates around two million Americans live abroad; a State Department report from 2015 places that number at nine million. FVAP data falls in between—at about 5.7 million. There are also discrepancies when it comes to how many ballots are cast: FVAP—which bases its data on statistical modeling—estimates 200,000 ballots cast in the 2016 election, but data from the Election Administration and Voting Survey (EAVS) is higher, at 380,000.
“That’s the big challenge: there’s no one national, one central database or collection of overseas Americans that is freely shared,” FVAP Director David Beirne told me. “That’s just the nature of the beast.”
For a long time, many observers assumed overseas voters—especially those deployed in the military—leaned Republican, said Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels, a reader in migration and politics at the Brussels School of International Studies of the University of Kent. More recent numbers, however, may suggest a more Democratic tilt. In North Carolina, a state with a substantial military population, 44 percent of overseas absentee ballot requests were from registered Democrats in 2016, while only 21 percent came from registered Republicans.
At just seven percent, the overseas voting rate in 2016 was minimal. Even then, it had risen two percent from 2012, when only five percent of eligible voters cast a ballot. FVAP estimates the 2014 voting rate at an even lower number—just four percent. Bryan and Klekowski von Koppenfels suspect that turnout will increase again in 2020, which will likely benefit Democrats. “We’re living in countries where we expect to have health care for all,” Bryan said. “This is just normal to us, it’s everyday life. Even the Republicans I know in Prague would never want their health care taken away.”
All in all, there are millions of Americans abroad who could potentially be a deciding factor in ousting Donald Trump. They may just be the Democratic Party’s secret weapon in 2020.
The issue of the overseas voters first gained traction on Capitol Hill in the 1960s, when a group of American expatriates in London and Paris fought for their re-enfranchisement. Congress ultimately granted overseas citizens the right to vote absentee in 1975, after members of the military stationed outside the U.S. had been granted the same right some years earlier. Then, in 1986, lawmakers unified both sets of laws into the Uniformed And Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.
The legislation was overwhelmingly bipartisan. Michael Hanmer, a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, said a reason for this is the legislation’s focus on military voters. “It’s next to impossible to find public officials who are going to do things that might disenfranchise members of the military,” Hanmer said.
Today, overseas registrations and ballot requests are completed yearly through an online form and allow citizens to vote in the state where they last resided, regardless of whether they plan to return. Thirty-eight states also allow for citizens who have never lived in the U.S. to vote based on their parents’ last residence.
Beyond Democrats Abroad, there are non-partisan organizations that are trying to ensure Americans living overseas are exercising their constitutional right to the franchise, such as the U.S. Vote Foundation and American Citizens Abroad.
Still, there is only one group really engaged in the rough-and-tumble of partisan politics overseas. This summer, DA will send 21 delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee as members of the 51st state. In 2016, one of its delegates was Larry Sanders, who lives in the U.K. and cast his ballot for his brother, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. The Senator himself has participated in virtual town halls for DA, as have nine of the other candidates. But Sanders appears to be popular abroad. Among the nearly 35,000 overseas Democrats who cast their ballots in the 2016 primary, 69 percent sided with Sanders while 31 percent voted for Hillary Clinton.
Bryan has said one of the best ways to ensure Democrats overseas vote is to first get them to join her organization as members. (The group’s membership rate doubled after the 2016 election, she said.) One of these voters is Rebecca Alvarado. A graduate student at the University of Heidelberg, Alvarado was born in Germany to American parents. She’s eligible to vote in her father’s home state of Colorado, which she’s been doing since 2012.
Alvarado attended her first Democrats Abroad meeting in early February. Attendance, she said, had more than doubled from the previous one, which the organizers chalked up to the Iowa caucus fiasco earlier that week. “I finally felt like I can get involved and do something,” she said, “because up until now it’s just been me and a ballot box, or not even a ballot box, me and the post box.”
Notably, the GOP doesn’t have an official arm dedicated to supporting overseas voters—or increasing voter turnout. Republicans Abroad, an organization similar to DA, ceased operations in 2013, and was replaced by Republicans Overseas, which mainly works to raise awareness of the tax situation Americans find themselves in abroad, said Solomon Yue, the organization’s vice-chair and CEO. Voter outreach for the GOP is handled country-by-country.
The Democrats, however, are taking a different approach. Bryan said her team is working to activate American voters across the world. For Democrats, getting rid of Trump is a priority. It may take a global effort to make it happen.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-21--Is a Showdown Between Sanders and the Democratic Party Inevitable?

According to the model Nate Silver developed to predict the outcome of the 2020 Democratic primary , the most likely scenario is that no candidate will receive a majority of delegates—leading to a so-called “ contested convention.
” There are several factors that have contributed to the possibility of that happening for the first time since 1952 .
• The proportional allocation of delegates from each state .
• The front-loaded primary calendar , with roughly two thirds of the pledged delegates being allocated by the end of March .
According to the rules established by the Democratic Party , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pledged delegates ( 1,991 of 3,979 ) secured in order to be the nominee .
If no one reaches that majority , the convention goes to a second ballot , where pledged delegates become unpledged and so-called “ superdelegates ” are allowed to vote .
Given the possibility of that scenario occurring in July , Chuck Todd asked the candidates at Wednesday ’ s debate whether the person with the most delegates should be the nominee , even if they fail to reach a majority .
Of the six candidates on stage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process should be followed , with Sanders being the only candidate to say that the one with a plurality of votes should be the nominee .
There are a couple of factors to weigh when considering those responses .
The first is that , in a primary where no candidate won a majority , the process laid out by the party would force them to develop the kind of coalition that will be necessary to defeat Trump in November .
In a sense , it would mirror what happens during parliamentary elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if both Sanders and Warren are still in the race , they might try to convince the other candidate ’ s delegates to join them to produce a majority .
But it is also important to think about how these rules came about .
As we all know , the 2016 primary between Clinton and Sanders was very contentious .
By June , Clinton had amassed a majority of pledged delegates .
But Sanders refused to concede , suggesting that he could win over superdelegates ( who were then allowed to vote on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to give him a majority .
He was unsuccessful in that effort , and Clinton became the nominee .
Recognizing the tensions that remained after the election , DNC Chair Tom Perez created a Unity Reform Commission to review the party ’ s rules .
Members were appointed by Clinton , Sanders , and Perez .
The process was long and excruciating , but the final agreement included the proposal backed by Sanders to only allow superdelegates to vote on a second round .
That is the process that all of the candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the end , Sanders has gone from refusing to concede the nomination in an attempt to woo superdelegates , to negotiating their elimination from the first ballot , to now suggesting that the rules he negotiated shouldn ’ t be followed .
The only thing that ties those three positions together is a determination of what would be in the best interests of Bernie Sanders .
For years now , Sanders has shown his contempt for the Democratic Party—only assuming membership when it comes time to run for office .
He has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wield their power by threatening to not participate unless their demands are met .
That has proven to be an effective political strategy , with leaders like Perez and Minority Leader Schumer attempting to bring him and his followers back into the fold .
It might be time to question whether those efforts have been warranted , or if an ultimate showdown is coming regardless of what they do .
In other words , a confrontation could be inevitable .
Based on his response in the debate , that is precisely what Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to win a majority of delegates in this primary .
He will attempt to toss out the rules that were so painstakingly agreed to , throwing the process into chaos .
That might be in Sanders ’ best interest , but it would be devastating for those who are committed to defeating Donald Trump and restoring democracy in this country .

According to the model Nate Silver developed to predict the outcome of the 2020 Democratic primary, the most likely scenario is that no candidate will receive a majority of delegates—leading to a so-called “contested convention.” There are several factors that have contributed to the possibility of that happening for the first time since 1952.
The unusually large field of candidates.
The proportional allocation of delegates from each state.
The front-loaded primary calendar, with roughly two thirds of the pledged delegates being allocated by the end of March.
According to the rules established by the Democratic Party, a candidate needs to have a majority of pledged delegates (1,991 of 3,979) secured in order to be the nominee. If no one reaches that majority, the convention goes to a second ballot, where pledged delegates become unpledged and so-called “superdelegates” are allowed to vote.
Given the possibility of that scenario occurring in July, Chuck Todd asked the candidates at Wednesday’s debate whether the person with the most delegates should be the nominee, even if they fail to reach a majority. Of the six candidates on stage, five of them said no, the process should be followed, with Sanders being the only candidate to say that the one with a plurality of votes should be the nominee.
There are a couple of factors to weigh when considering those responses. The first is that, in a primary where no candidate won a majority, the process laid out by the party would force them to develop the kind of coalition that will be necessary to defeat Trump in November. In a sense, it would mirror what happens during parliamentary elections in other countries. For example, if both Sanders and Warren are still in the race, they might try to convince the other candidate’s delegates to join them to produce a majority.
But it is also important to think about how these rules came about. As we all know, the 2016 primary between Clinton and Sanders was very contentious. By June, Clinton had amassed a majority of pledged delegates. But Sanders refused to concede, suggesting that he could win over superdelegates (who were then allowed to vote on the first round), in order to give him a majority. He was unsuccessful in that effort, and Clinton became the nominee.
Recognizing the tensions that remained after the election, DNC Chair Tom Perez created a Unity Reform Commission to review the party’s rules. Members were appointed by Clinton, Sanders, and Perez. The process was long and excruciating, but the final agreement included the proposal backed by Sanders to only allow superdelegates to vote on a second round. That is the process that all of the candidates except Sanders affirmed on Wednesday night.
In the end, Sanders has gone from refusing to concede the nomination in an attempt to woo superdelegates, to negotiating their elimination from the first ballot, to now suggesting that the rules he negotiated shouldn’t be followed. The only thing that ties those three positions together is a determination of what would be in the best interests of Bernie Sanders.
For years now, Sanders has shown his contempt for the Democratic Party—only assuming membership when it comes time to run for office. He has now assembled a group of followers who wield their power by threatening to not participate unless their demands are met. That has proven to be an effective political strategy, with leaders like Perez and Minority Leader Schumer attempting to bring him and his followers back into the fold.
It might be time to question whether those efforts have been warranted, or if an ultimate showdown is coming regardless of what they do. In other words, a confrontation could be inevitable.
Based on his response in the debate, that is precisely what Sanders is threatening to do if he is unable to win a majority of delegates in this primary. He will attempt to toss out the rules that were so painstakingly agreed to, throwing the process into chaos. That might be in Sanders’ best interest, but it would be devastating for those who are committed to defeating Donald Trump and restoring democracy in this country.