And They're Off!

It seems too early for talk of the 2020 presidential election. Election day is more than 20 months away. But it's really not. Three years ago in the second or third entry on this blog, I wrote about the primary candidates for each party. They'd already had several debates by then and the first primary was coming up. In fact, the first primary debate for 2020 will be this summer. So consider the January time period as the launch cycle. Let's look at timing, who's running and what to watch.

Schedule

As is tradition, Iowa and New Hampshire get the first say. The Iowa caucuses are about a year from today, on Feb. 3, 2020. The New Hampshire primary is the week after. What is notable about these two states are their make-up. Iowa is "Midwestern" — small minority population, popular candidates or well-run campaigns can make a difference here. New Hampshire is New England — white, East Coast-y with an independent streak. The common denominator is that both are heavily white. In fact, both are more than 90 percent white/Caucasian. These two are kind of gate-keepers in that many poor candidates or people that put a lot of their eggs in Iowa/NH baskets will drop out with disappointing performances.

Later in February comes Nevada (about 1/3 minority mostly Hispanic, plus a strong union representation that can swing elections) and South Carolina (about 1/3 minority mostly black, and especially in the Democratic primary).

Then comes "Super Tuesday" on March 3, and it's probably going to determine the candidate or who the final 2-3 will be. It's a nice mix of states, both populous and small, red states and blue states, those with minority populations and those very very white. States include California, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Vermont, Virginia and Tennessee. What's notable is this includes at least 2-4 home states for candidates. If they can't win their home state, they won't stand a chance in the remaining states.

This schedule can be advantageous or not. Elizabeth Warren is focusing on New Hampshire to build momentum for later. Kamala Harris is hoping for a good enough showing in Iowa and New Hampshire until she can get to calmer waters in South Carolina and Super Tuesday. Biden and Bernie (if they run) are hoping their name recognition can get them a plurality in the early states and ride others dropping out into a majority (see: Trump, successfully).

The Candidates

I'm just going to give short thoughts here. I loved this piece by FiveThirtyEight that shows the coalition-building aspect of running for president. I like that they've changed their approach from the last election to show strengths more like an RPG and less as a five-ring circus. I'm going to include only declared candidates or major candidates who are expected to run (Biden, Bernie, Booker, and Beto). I've also included Amy Klobuchar. We'll talk more about this list as the candidates get more refined, but let's take an early look.

Joe Biden
Name recognition is high. "Uncle Joe" is already a familiar face and associated with a popular past president. He's gaffe-prone but still better in that respect than President Trump. Knows how to win elections, knows how to talk to people, may possibly draw in non-college educated whites. An old white guy who is a known entity. There's something to be said for stability, but he's not among the first five names that inspire excitement.

Bernie Sanders
Another known quantity, another old white guy with name recognition. There is a segment of Democratic voters that are Bernie lifers. He has populism credibility. But I am bearish on Bernie. If he couldn't beat Hillary Clinton (largely because he couldn't get minorities to believe in him), then how will he be able to beat More Likeable Hillary (Gillibrand) or Bernie's Nerdy Protege (Warren)?

Kirsten Gillibrand
I called her More Likeable Hillary above, and that's not far off. She performs well in public interviews. She is a New York senator, just like Hillary was. She's anti-Trump, which is fine. I don't think her past stances on issues matter a whole lot. She's one of a large crop of female candidates, which is notable. She was one of the first Democrats to call for Al Franken's resignation, which was a brave decision that I applaud but I'm not sure has done her much favors with Democratic donors. I like her, but I think she's a few years too early: If you're going to run for president, you really get only one shot and the timing has to be perfect. I don't think the timing is perfect for her, but I understand the decision to run.

Kamala Harris
I'm bullish on Kamala Harris, the California senator. She's half-black, half-Indian. She's a woman who's relatively young (20 years younger than Bernie/Biden/Warren). She's a former prosecutor, which I think shows she's not easy on crime, which will be a good counter to her anti-death penalty stance. I've seen her performances on national interviews and I think she comes off pretty natural. She is tough as nails and can obviously raise money and compete broadly if she can win the enormously diverse, enormously expensive California senate race. I think she's positioned well, and will be the favorite if she can pull off a surprise win in Iowa or New Hampshire.

Elizabeth Warren
I loved Elizabeth Warren. I thought she was a Smarter Bernie. I thought she was a Nerdier Hillary. She has some Oklahoma cred. She's got Trump outsmarted in one of his strongest categories (economics... though law/order would be his other strength). I think she is stronger now than Bernie is. I think she may just win New Hampshire, one of the two key early states. That said, I think she blew her chance a few months ago with the DNA test. In an attempt to take a weakness (Trump's Pocahontas line) off the board, all she did was call attention to it in a ham-handed way. She played Trump's game. Democrats want a candidate who will fight, but fight on their own terms and not on his. Warren is playing the same game Hillary did, and look where it got Hillary.

Beto O'Rourke
I thought he was Hispanic. He's not, surprisingly. He is from El Paso, so he knows how to appeal to Hispanics. He is savvy at the type of one-liners, Twitter-friendly, youth-oriented media culture. He's handsome, likable, smart and a great fundraiser. In Texas, of all states, he only lost to Ted Cruz by less than 3 points (!). Personally, I think he'd be a great vice presidential candidate pick or future Cabinet member. But I don't think he's strong enough to beat Donald Trump. I won't throw "experience" out there as a negative since Trump has proven that's not necessary.

Cory Booker
He's young, single (though maybe dating movie star Rosario Dawson?!?!?) , handsome and black. (Note: I mention race as a factor because I think Democratic voters want someone who can appeal to minorities, not that it means a person is a shoo-in for those segments.) He's a good, natural speaker when a guest on national shows. He's a good candidate... in any year but this one. I think he's a guy who wants to be president so hard. However, I'm bearish on Cory Booker. What does he do well or which sectors does he succeed in that Kamala Harris doesn't do better? He's also a bit tied to Wall Street, which can be an anchor for some candidates.

Amy Klobuchar
I'm intrigued by Klobuchar. She's a woman candidate from the Rust Belt, which is a positive thing: Any Democrat who wins MN/WI/PA/MI will be the President. She's moderate, which in this case means "not as scary to the left as some of those other candidates." I see her name bandied about a lot by various sites, but I just don't think she has either the name recognition like Biden/Bernie or the popular support like Beto to make a deep run in the primaries. That could change with a successful debate appearance, though.

Julian Castro
Former HUD Secretary. Former San Antonio Mayor. He's the candidate with legit Hispanic credibility. He's a good speaker and he's tied to the Obama administration, both positives for the Democratic field, but I just think he's outclassed by Beto, who is also a Hispanic-appealing Texan, but more popular and more media savvy. I just don't think anyone was clamoring for Julian Castro, and he's even less likely to gain traction as this goes on.

Pete Buttigieg
He's the mayor of South Bend, Ind., so there's a bit of a Midwestern angle. He's openly gay (minority!). He's a great speaker and is a rising star among millennials/the left's media outlets. Already some of my friends on the far left have said they like him and support him. But South Bend is a far reach from the presidency. I really think this is about becoming more well-known for a future, more successful run somewhere down the road. He could make a splash with a good debate performance, but probably not much more than that.

John Delaney
He's been running since July 2017! Do you know who he is? I don't, and I even follow politics. He's a representative from Maryland. He and I have the same percentage chance of winning the presidency in 2020 — and I'll only be eligible to run by a few months!

Tulsi Gabbard
Congresswoman from Hawaii. War veteran. Hindu. Samoan-American. Her stances are all over the place and she's got not a chance in hell.

Richard Ojeda
Now we're to the bottom of the barrel. Richard Ojeda is a former West Virginia state senator and a veteran. He did pretty well in a House race in West Virginia, only losing by 12 points to a Republican. He will not win.

Andrew Yang
I have at least heard of the other candidates. Asian-American entrepreneur. He's a one-issue candidate, which is a thing that you forget happens every four years. His one thing is universal basic income, a concept that is unlikely in the current American political climate.

Seeing Red

I'm sick of red. That's no dig to my alma maters (either of them), nor to my employer, all of whom use red as a main color.

Rather, it's a dig at news sites and networks that use red as a primary color or have moved to it. There are numerous psychological studies about the color red and its effects on the brain. Red is the passion color. That's good — passion can be warmth and comfort. But it's also bad — think a red cape waving in front of a bull (Note: it's not the red that a bull hates, it's the waving cape, but I digress.). Red is a color of alert and danger and emotion. These are fine in the appropriate context.

However, I am worried about sites like CNN (red all over, including a primary color) and FOX News (red in prominent places, though it appears they have moved more to a dark blue as a primary color). One of the major television stations in Kansas City has also moved from a lovely blue (calming, typically) to a red as a primary color.

I'm not saying all of these networks should move to a teal or sunny yellow. What I'm saying is that frequent use of red psychologically sends warning signals to viewers. Red should be used sparingly so as not to make a Chicken Little situation. There is a ton of news, but if all of it gets a heavy red, then everything is a danger, everyone is in danger and there is no relief.

Some of that seems to be a product of our times. The government has been partially shut down for two weeks, the president is under investigation for multiple reasons, and the president's party got thumped in the midterms. Those are all major news events! However, not everything deserves the red letter treatment. But to use the color red on every little news event — BREAKING NEWS! PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TWEETED! — has put too much emphasis on every story. The sense of scale is something we never knew we were losing.

It's OK to not Care

I have not watched the video of the MAGA hat teen and the Native American.

Consider what you expect to get/learn from things like this. To me, it was a person I don't know and a person I don't know, with at least one person being a jerk. It's a "confrontation" that only serves to rile people up. It's a "confrontation" that I've seen in other locations with other people multiple times. I don't need to see it again.

Summary Judgments

Nice little ESPN story about one of my favorite players on my favorite NBA team.  •  •  •  Way to go, low-level German soccer coach: This is how you respond to sexist questions with grace and humor.  •  •  •  "No collusion!" became "Collusion is not a crime!" became "I never said there was no collusion." Does anyone else see these things? What is even happening? How is the political world just moving along as if this weren't taking place?  •  •  •  Can we place a moratorium on reporting things that may happen more than a year in the future? A report came out about Patrick Mahomes signing a $200 million extension to stay with the Chiefs. That's great and all, but that isn't even a possibility until after the 2020 season — two more seasons. Let's cross that bridge when we get to it.  •  •  •  I am running a half-marathon in about five weeks. I have only run 8.5 miles at the most. I'll be up to 10 miles before the race. We'll see how it goes. It's way too cold/snowy/icy/dark to run outside right now, so I've been running on a treadmill, which I hate. I may consider another half marathon later in the year so I can run more when it's warmer (and maybe I'm about 10 lbs. lighter.)  •  •  •  For the kids' birthday, we got them new beds. We brought Alyson's old bunk bed up for Evie, so she could sleep on the top and then underneath there's a little sitting area with books and sitting space. A couple weeks ago, she was throwing up, and we didn't want her to mess up the upper bunk and make it hard to clean up. So we set up a little mattress below. Of course, she has slept there ever since because she likes it. Now what's the point of having the bunk bed?