Howard Dean

Polls One Year Ahead Of National Elections Prove Nothing!

Ronald 4 Comments

National polling a year or more ahead of a national election is pointless, as much too often, it proves to be totally out of line with reality.

Also, elections are not decided nationally, but state by state, so therefore, the hysteria over the close polls on the Presidency showing a tight race should not cause people to panic.

At this point in many past election cycles, we were told Barack Obama was in bad shape in 2011; that Hillary Clinton was the guaranteed nominee in 2007; that Rudy Giuliani was the favored Republican candidate in 2007; that Howard Dean was favored in 2003; and on and on and on!

A year and more is an eternity, and the Democrats and Joe Biden still would be the favorite moving forward!

Reality: Candidates Ahead In Public Opinion Polls In Third Year Of Presidential Term Never Are The Nominees For President

Ronald 2 Comments

Public opinion polls have been notoriously inaccurate in the third year of a Presidential term in who would be the Presidential nominees of major parties the following year.

In 2003, Vermont Governor Howard Dean was the front runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination, but John Kerry ended up as the nominee in 2004.

In 2007, New York Senator Hillary Clinton was the front runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination, but Barack Obama ended up as the nominee in 2008.

In 2007, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani was the front runner for the Republican Presidential nomination, but John McCain ended up as the nominee in 2008.

In 2011, Herman Cain was the front runner for the Republican Presidential nomination, but Mitt Romney ended up as the nominee in 2012.

In 2015, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush was the front runner for the Republican Presidential nomination, but Donald Trump ended up as the nominee in 2016.

Beyond these examples, in the third year of many Presidential terms, who could have known that the next President would be someone not seriously considered at that time to have a chance to be elected.

Witness John F. Kennedy in 1959; Richard Nixon in 1967; Jimmy Carter in 1975; Ronald Reagan in 1979; Bill Clinton in 1991; Barack Obama in 2007; and Donald Trump in 2015.

Also add the following: Abraham Lincoln in 1859; Woodrow Wilson in 1911; Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931; and Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1951.

So, to assume that Joe Biden, currently ahead in all polls for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2020, will be the nominee is quite a gamble, based upon history.

Joe Trippi, Campaign Manager For Many Democrats, Able To Promote Great Victory For Doug Jones In Alabama, A Turning Point For 2018

Ronald 2 Comments

One of the key figures who brought about the election of Doug Jones in Alabama was his masterful campaign manager, Joe Trippi.

Trippi managed to run a campaign that was brilliant in execution.

Trippi is well versed in Democratic campaigns for office, not successful on a regular basis as with Jones, but he is well regarded for his campaign strategies.

Among those he assisted in various campaigns for public office are:

Minnesota Senator and Vice President Walter Mondale and his Presidential campaign in 1984.

Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy and his Presidential campaign in 1980.

Colorado Senator Gary Hart and his Presidential campaign in 1988.

California Governor Jerry Brown and his Presidential campaign in 1992 and gubernatorial campaign in 2010.

North Carolina Senator John Edwards and his 2008 Presidential campaign.

Missouri House Minority Leader and Congressman Dick Gephardt and his Presidential campaign in 1988 after Gary Hart dropped out.

Trippi also was campaign manager for Vermont Governor and 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate Howard Dean.

Additionally, he assisted Senate elections of California Senator Alan Cranston, Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski, and Oregon Senator Ron Wyden.

Hopefully, the Doug Jones election in a “Red” state will be a turning point nationwide in the midterm Congressional Elections of 2018.

Democrats Only Gain 6 House Seats, 2 Senate Seats In 2016 Elections: Can They Recover In 2018?

Ronald 74 Comments

The Democratic Party, which looked on the edge of becoming the dominant party in America, at least on the Presidential level, now is faced with the possibility of a long term status as the party that can win the coast lines and the majority of the popular vote for President, but still lose the Electoral College again and again, with twice in the past generation, 2000 and now 2016.

By all estimates, in the long run, whatever that means, the demographic changes in America will insure that the Democrats will eventually have a tremendous advantage, but for now, the situation is gloomy, as the Democrats only gained 6 House seats and 2 Senate seats, and the loss of Russ Feingold in Wisconsin and Evan Bayh in Indiana, when both were heavily favored, was startling.

So the job is to recruit a future generation of leadership on the state level as well as the national level, and unfortunately, the Democrats on the national level have just shot themselves in the foot, by electing once again the same old team (all in their mid 70s) of Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and James Clyburn to leadership of their party in the House of Representatives.

And picking an African American and first Muslim in Congress, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, as the Democratic National Chairman, which now seems inevitable with Howard Dean withdrawing from the race, is not exactly the greatest choice either.

So can the Democrats recover in 2018? They likely would gain some seats in the House of Representatives, but not control, and the Senate will be almost impossible not to lose seats, as 25 of 33 seats up for election are Democratic seats, so the future is gloomy, as the situation now seems.

Small States’ (One House Member And Two Senators) Influence In Congress Since 1945

Ronald Leave a comment

There are seven states that have had only one member of the House of Representatives, along with two US Senators, in the past 70 years. but despite their small populations, these states have had a massive impact on American politics and history!  In addition, for the first few decades since 1945, Nevada also had one House member until growth caused two, and then, three seats in the House.

The seven states are Vermont, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and Alaska!

But North Dakota, South Dakota,and Montana had two members of the House until recent decades when reapportionment caused them to lose a second seat.

So only Vermont, Delaware, Wyoming, and Alaska (since 1959) stand alone as consistently having one House member and two Senators per state.

But look at their influence:

Vermont had George Aiken (R) (1941-1975) and has Patrick Leahy (D) for 41 years (1975 to Present) and counting now, and Bernie Sanders since 1990,  who  was the lone House member for 16 years before election to the Senate in 2006,making him the longest serving Independent in the history of both houses of Congress.  Also, Howard Dean, former Governor of the state, was a leading contender for the Democratic nomination in 2004, and then became head of the Democratic National Committee, and helped the rise of Barack Obama with a “50 state” strategy between 2004-2008.

Delaware had Joe Biden as Senator for six terms from 1973-2009, and now as Vice President.  He became one of the longest serving Senators of all time, and sought the Presidency in 1988 and 2008.

Wyoming had Dick Cheney as its lone Congressman for ten years from 1979-1989, before he ended up as Secretary of Defense under the first Bush Presidency, and Vice President in the second Bush Presidency.  Also, Alan Simpson served in the Senate from 1979-1997 as  a Republican, and Gale McGree from 1959-1977 as a Democrat.

Alaska had Ted Stevens in the Senate for 40 years from 1968 to 2009, the longest serving Republican Senator in American history.  Also, Sarah Palin , while Governor, was the Vice Presidential nominee for the Republicans in 2008.

And if one looks at the other states which had one Congressman at least for the last few decades, we have South Dakota and Senator George McGovern (1963-1981), the 1972 Democratic Presidential nominee; Montana, with Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D) (1953-1977) from 1961-1977; Nevada with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) (1987-Present) from 2007-2015; and North Dakota Senators Kent Conrad (1987-2013) and Bryan Dorgan (1992-2011).

So the “small” states have really had a major role in American politics, despite their small populations!

Imagine A Presidential Election Battle Without Any Previous Candidates In The Race!

Ronald Leave a comment

The thought has crossed this blogger’s mind what it would be like if for once, just once, no one who had previously competed for the Presidential nomination of either party, nor had been a Vice Presidential running mate, became involved in the upcoming Presidential Election campaign of 2016.

Think of who would be eliminated from consideration:

Democrats (8)–Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Al Gore, Jerry Brown, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich

Republicans (11)–Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, John Kasich

Who would be left to compete?

Democrats (13)–Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kirsten Gillibrand, Andrew Cuomo, Martin O’Malley, Mark Warner, Corey Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Jay Nixon, John Hickenlooper, Brian Schweitzer, Deval Patrick, Rahm Emanuel

Republicans (13)–Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Peter King, Mike Pence, Rob Portman, Scott Walker, Brian Sandoval, Susana Martinez, Nikki Haley

One can wonder who would be competitive for the Presidential nominations, and who would galvanize support among the population and go on to be the nominees of the two major political parties!

We would have a true “donnybrook” situation, with anyone having the potential to be the nominees, “catch fire”, and go on to be the 45th President of the United States!

If this author was to venture an educated guess, one would come to the following conclusions:

Democrats–The major battle would be among Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Martin O’Malley and Mark Warner.

Republicans–The major battle would be among Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Mike Pence and Rob Portman.

The final battle would be between Warren and O’Malley for the Democratic nomination, and between Marco Rubio and Mike Pence for the Republican nomination.

The two finalists would be Martin O’Malley and Marco Rubio, with O’Malley being the winner and the 45th President of the United States!

This is due to the reality of the Electoral College, which strongly favors the Democrats to win the White House in 2016 and beyond, as the Northeast, New England, Upper Midwest, and Pacific Coast are strongly “Blue”, and most of the “swing states” are favored to go “Blue” as well, including Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Virginia, Ohio, and Iowa.

Florida and North Carolina would be more difficult for the Democrats, particularly if Rubio is the GOP nominee, but the electoral vote would still be heavily Democratic, even without those two states!

Left In Democratic Party Not Comfortable With Hillary Clinton, Looking Elsewhere For Primary Challenge!

Ronald 5 Comments

Hillary Clinton may be the runaway favorite in most polls for the Democratic Presidential nomination for 2016, but we have never seen a non-incumbent to compete without an opponent in their party’s battle for the Presidential nomination.

So we are starting to feel, see, and sense that there will be challengers to Hillary, and the speculation has become wide and deep that any or some of the following will, indeed, challenge the former Secretary of State, Senator, and First Lady:

Vice President Joe Biden of Delaware
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland
Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
Senator Mark Warner of Virginia
Governor Jerry Brown of California
Former Governor Howard Dean of Vermont
Governor Jay Nixon of Missouri (totally new to any speculation)
Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado

There is discontent with Hillary Clinton’s ties to Wall Street; her gaining as much as $275,000 a speech before wealthy donors and groups; and the image of her as a “hawk” in foreign policy. She is seen as part of the “Establishment”, and as not sufficiently understanding of the plight of the middle class and the poor. Her husband worked against the left, sticking to a centrist viewpoint in his years in the White House, and while there are salutes for him as a former President, the Left is looking for someone more in the line of doing more for the poor and middle class, and staying out of foreign wars, and regulating Wall Street.

So that is the appeal of Warren, Sanders and O’Malley in particular, but the idea of Brown coming back, mentioned in an earlier blog entry, is fascinating, and Dean trying again after 12 years is also intriguing! And imagine a “Nixon”, not related to the former President, running from the “heartland”, the state of Missouri, which was always on the winning side of every election from 1900 to the present, except 1956, 2008, and 2012, but close in the first two years!

And of course, Hillary could decide, ultimately, NOT to run, and then it is a true donnybrook in the making for the Democrats in 2016!

Could there be a surprise in the Democratic Presidential sweepstakes? After 2008, who can say?

Governors And The Presidential Election Of 2016

Ronald Leave a comment

It has often been pointed out that more Governors have been elected President over the course of American history than Senators.

From 1900 on, the following Presidents were earlier Governors of their states—Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush.

The argument is that being a Governor prepares one better for the Presidency than serving in the national government in Washington, DC.

Whether this is true or not, the argument now is that the national government, and particularly the Congress, is so engaged in stalemate and gridlock, that the best choice in the Presidential Election of 2016 would be to go once again for a Governor or former Governor, as occurred four times of the past six Presidents, and seven of the past ten national elections.

So if that is the case, what is the market among Governors?

First, the Democratic side:

Martin O’Malley of Maryland
Andrew Cuomo of New York
John Hickenlooper of Colorado
Mark Warner of Virginia
Brian Schweitzer of Montana
Jerry Brown of California
Howard Dean of Vermont
Deval Patrick of Massachusetts
Dannel Malloy of Connecticut

Now the Republican side

Chris Christie of New Jersey
Jeb Bush of Florida
Scott Walker of Wisconsin
Bobby Jindal of Louisiana
Rick Perry of Texas
John Kasich of Ohio
Jon Huntsman of Utah
Nikki Haley of South Carolina
Mike Pence of Indiana
Brian Sandoval of Nevada
Susana Martinez of New Mexico
Rick Scott of Florida

So, at least in theory, nine former or sitting Democratic Governors and twelve former or sitting Republican Governors are potential Presidential nominees.

Having said that, it is clear that some of these two groups are highly unlikely to be a candidate, or to have any realistic chance to be the nominee, including for the Democrats: Brown, Dean, Malloy, and Patrick, and for the Republicans: Scott, Martinez, Sandoval, Pence, Haley, and sadly (because he would be the best choice for the GOP long term), Huntsman.

For the Democrats, O’Malley and Cuomo and Warner (who has also served in the Senate), would be the best choices, were it not for the “800 pound gorilla” of Hillary Clinton and the slightly smaller version of Joe Biden. Were it not for them, these three listed Democrats would be a great term to compete for the nomination. Hickenlooper is also a good candidate, but would not be considered as likely to have a good chance, and Schweitzer might very well run, based on recent comments and activities, but the odds for him, especially against Clinton and Biden as things now stand, are extremely high of failure, and even of being mostly ignored by political pundits.

For the Republicans, Christie and Bush would be the most likely to have a real opportunity for the Presidency, but with the Tea Party Movement, neither is very popular, to say the least. Walker might be a better bet on that score, with Jindal seeming less attractive as time goes by, and Perry a real long shot based on his past performances. The “dark horse” to watch would be Kasich, who had a long career on Capitol Hill and knows how Washington works, and despite his mixed record in so many areas, is personally appealing, unlike any of those listed In this paragraph, in many ways the most appealing personally other than Huntsman.

If one had to bet which of each list would have the best chance, all things being equal, one would say O’Malley for the Democrats and Kasich for the Republicans, but the odds are that it will be someone from Capitol Hill–Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden for the Democrats, and Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or Paul Ryan for the Republicans, with the Democrats having the clear edge in the Electoral College, because of the support of the Atlantic Coast and Pacific Coast, and the likelihood of strong support in the upper Midwest and Illinois and Iowa, along with Virginia, an unmatchable scenario for the Republicans, as we look at the political situation as 2013 ends, but always subject to changing times that are unpredictable.

“Wild Cards” To The Extreme: Jerry Brown And Howard Dean Presidential Candidacies?

Ronald Leave a comment

We are entering 2014 in ten days, and yet, we are going back to the past, the extreme past, in fact, when we learn that California Governor Jerry Brown and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean are considering running for President in 2016.

Jerry Brown is not just a “wild card”, but also he is the “wildest card” of all, having run for President three times in the past 40 years, and being age 78 in 2016. Brown was Governor of California for two terms from 1975-1983, and after being Attorney General and Oakland Mayor, came back as Governor in 2011, making him the youngest and oldest Governor in California history.

Brown ran in 1976 against Jimmy Carter in the primaries and caucuses, and then challenged the reelection campaign of Carter, along with Ted Kennedy, in 1980. Then, he ran in the 1992 campaign against the ultimate winner, Bill Clinton, and bad blood was spilled between the two men. Now, if Brown ran, he would be challenging Hillary Clinton, stirring up again the bad blood that developed 22 years ago.

Brown has always been a gadfly, an annoyance, and both Southern Democratic Presidents elected in the past 40 years saw him as an annoying “mosquito”, as he was seen as weird and flaky by many, and is still seen as that in his old age by many observers.

Howard Dean was Governor of Vermont from 1991-2003, and was the frontrunner for awhile in the 2004 Presidential campaign, but collapsed quickly and made a fool of himself by his shrieks after the Iowa Caucuses, and John Kerry went on to become the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2004, losing to George W. Bush. Dean has been a commentator on public affairs, and a left wing critic of Barack Obama, but at age 68 in 2016, could be part of the race again, although the odds are heavy that he will not get very far in his challenge to Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and any other Democrats who might decide to run, including former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, who has the virtue of being a “new face” in the race, and a lot younger than either Brown or Dean.

Brown particularly, and even Dean, could be seen as being almost like Harold Stassen was in the Republican Party, politicians who have had their moment in the sun, but fail to realize that the time has passed on them, and that we are not about to nominate a 78 year old “has been”, or even a 68 year old “wannabe”!

Howard Dean’s Statement About Generational Differences Of Presidents We Elect Brings Up Interesting Point About 2016!

Ronald Leave a comment

Former Vermont Governor, 2004 Presidential competitor, and Democratic National Committee head Howard Dean was on MORNING JOE yesterday, and brought up an interesting point about generational differences of Presidents we elect to the Oval Office.

Dean said it is highly unlikely that we will see Hillary Clinton have no competition for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2016, because for the nation to go back a generation in birth from one President to the next is unusual—in this case to go back to a “Baby Boomer” born in the late 1940s after electing a President born in the early 1960s. Therefore, Dean states that he believed someone born closer to the birth year of Barack Obama would be more likely to be the nominee, a person such as Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley or New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as examples–with O’Malley one and a half years younger than Obama and Cuomo three and a half years older than Obama.

So Dean has brought up the age issue, just as Republicans have, with their numerous potential candidates in their 40s and early 50s–including Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, and Rand Paul among others.

This statement by Dean caused this author to check out how often has America elected a President much younger than his predecessor, and has uncovered the following:

William Henry Harrison—nearly ten years older than Martin Van Buren
Zachary Taylor—eleven years older than James K. Polk
James Buchanan—thirteen and a half years older than Franklin Pierce
Ronald Reagan—thirteen and a half years older than Jimmy Carter

A few other Presidents have been a few years older than their predecessor, but these are the only four cases of “generational” differences of Presidents we elect, although not precisely a “generation”, which is described as twenty years.

If Hillary Clinton was elected, she would be nearly 14 years older than Barack Obama, more difference than even Buchanan or Reagan from their predecessors.

If Joe Biden was elected, he would be nearly 19 years older than Barack Obama, the greatest difference between two Presidents in American history, and literally a “generation”!

This is food for thought, and realize that Harrison and Taylor were elected for their war exploits as generals, and all the cases mentioned above were before the Civil War, more than a century and a half ago, with the one exception of Ronald Reagan.

The question is whether, and said in irony, is either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden another Ronald Reagan? Again, this is said with tongue in cheek by a writer who has never been a big fan of Ronald Reagan!