A time to re-rank

An occasional bit of shtick I have employed this summer is the ranking of Democratic presidential candidates. It was a fun mental exercise when they got ready for the first round of debates, but there’s a method to the madness as well.

Since I last ranked these folks a couple months back, two candidates entered the race but five have dropped out, leaving the field at 21 by my count. Only ten qualified for tonight’s debate; however, I don’t think that necessarily covers the top ten in the race for a couple reasons. My tiers are a little bit different, and they’re not completely polling-based.

First, the ones who are out:

  • Kirsten Gillibrand (was ranked #9)
  • John Hickenlooper (was ranked #10)
  • Eric Swalwell (was ranked #15)
  • Jay Inslee (was ranked #16)
  • Seth Moulton (was ranked #20)

I kind of figured there were four uneven tiers to the race, and perhaps the best way to do this is by tier, ranked in order within each. So my fourth tier, the “why are they still bothering?” tier, looks like this.

  • Tim Ryan (was 19, now 18)
  • Joe Sestak (was unranked, now 19)
  • Mike Gravel (was 23, now 20)
  • Wayne Messam (was 24, now 21)

Needless to say, none of them sniffed the upcoming debate. Sestak was about the last to start, and he is a little different sort of Democrat, but there are a couple others in that lane who are struggling, too.

Now the third tier, which has to really hustle to still be around for the Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primary.

  • Beto O’Rourke (was 5, now 12) – in debate
  • Steve Bullock (was 11, now 13)
  • Michael Bennet (was 12, now 14)
  • John Delaney (was 17, now 15)
  • Bill deBlasio (was 14, now 16)
  • Marianne Williamson (was 22, now 17)

Obviously, the biggest surprise out of this group is Beto, who is actually on the debate stage but has really made a mess of his campaign; so much so that I don’t think the debate will help him. The others are now out of the “top ten” debate, although a couple in my next tier arguably should be included based on factors besides polling and donations.

The second tier has all debate participants except for two, but if you had a top ten only eight of those make my cut.

  • Pete Buttigieg (was 3, now 5)
  • Cory Booker (was 8, now 6)
  • Amy Klobuchar (remains at 7)
  • Tom Steyer (unranked, now 8) – not in debate
  • Tulsi Gabbard (was 21, now 9) – not in debate
  • Andrew Yang (was 13, now 10)
  • Julian Castro (was 18, now 11) – in debate

Castro has an inside track as the only Latino in the race, but I don’t see him really creating the buzz that Tulsi Gabbard has. Nor can I discount the vast wealth Tom Steyer possesses, which is why he ranks high. (Look, it worked for the President we have now…)

And then we have our first-tier top 4.

  • Joe Biden (remains at 1)
  • Elizabeth Warren (was 6, now 2)
  • Bernie Sanders (was 2, now 3)
  • Kamala Harris (remains at 4)

I almost put Harris into the second tier, as she has struggled to keep a coherent message. Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren has vaulted into the top tier as others fade.

Quickly, let’s go through some head-to-heads:

  • #1 Joe Biden annihilates #16 Bill deBlasio
  • #2 Elizabeth Warren defeats #15 John Delaney, but this wouldn’t be a huge blowout
  • #3 Bernie Sanders has enough to get past #14 Michael Bennet
  • #4 Kamala Harris easily beats #13 Steve Bullock in an interesting paring
  • In a battle of fading stars, #5 Pete Buttigieg eliminates #12 Beto O’Rourke
  • #6 Cory Booker barely handles #11 Julian Castro
  • I think #10 Andrew Yang pulls the upset over #7 Amy Klobuhar, who hasn’t set the world on fire with her campaign
  • #9 Tulsi Gabbard uses her buzz to slip past #8 Tom Steyer

Round 2:

  • In a grueling one, #1 Joe Biden outlasts #9 Tulsi Gabbard
  • No second upset: #2 Elizabeth Warren over #10 Andrew Yang
  • #3 Bernie Sanders finds someone he can beat in #6 Cory Booker
  • #4 Kamala Harris wins the battle of constituent groups over #5 Pete Buttigieg

Semi-finals:

  • I still think #1 Joe Biden is vulnerable, thus #4 Kamala Harris takes him out
  • #2 Elizabeth Warren is much less unlikable than #3 Bernie Sanders, so she advances to an all-female final

Final:

I’m still going with the minority hope for the second coming of Barack Obama: Harris squeaks by Warren. But Elizabeth is closing fast on that one.

One last bit of fun and frivolity: this is the number of Facebook “likes” each of these candidates have, in reverse order.

  • Wayne Messam – 5,256
  • Mike Gravel – 19,870
  • Joe Sestak – 17,409
  • Tim Ryan – 45,216
  • Marianne Williamson – 814,698
  • Bill deBlasio – 66,066
  • John Delaney – 358,540
  • Michael Bennet – 103,926
  • Steve Bullock – 32,210
  • Beto O’Rourke – 916,363
  • Julian Castro – 141,063
  • Andrew Yang – 176,552
  • Tulsi Gabbard – 376,996
  • Tom Steyer – 487,159
  • Amy Klobuchar – 258,525
  • Cory Booker – 1,192,736
  • Pete Buttigieg – 440,781
  • Kamala Harris – 1,148,668
  • Bernie Sanders – 5,103,842
  • Elizabeth Warren – 3,280,688
  • Joe Biden – 1,487,599

Surprising to me Joe doesn’t have the most – he’s barely third.

Life’s been good: former GOP rep seeks to oust Trump

In a move akin to tilting at a windmill, former Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh announced his intention to run for President on the Republican ticket. And he spared no harsh words for the titular head of his party:

I’m betting you’re tired of having an unfit con man for a president. A president who sides with foreign dictators over our intelligence community. A president who spews hate virtually every time he opens his mouth. A president who is teaching millions of American children it’s okay to lie and it’s okay to bully.

See, Donald Trump doesn’t represent us – he represents the worst of us. He hasn’t delivered on his promises, he thinks he’s above the law, and he’s tweeting us into a recession, as we speak.

You know it, I know it, we all know it: We can’t afford four more years of Donald Trump. No way.

Joe Walsh for President website

To be honest, I’m not really seeing the con here when it comes to Trump: to me it’s been baked into the equation since 2016. I think Republican voters had a pretty good idea about what they were getting. As for me, I knew better than to expect the second coming of Ronald Reagan, and in many respects I’ve been correct: I’ve neither been shocked nor surprised when he does things like keep the ethanol mandates in place, resist the idea of reforming Social Security, or speak about increasing gun restrictions. On the other hand, Trump has cut regulations at a faster pace than I ever imagined and exhibits a solid America-first foreign policy.

So when former Rep. Walsh maintains he’s in the race as an honest alternative to Donald Trump, the naysayers contend he’s the last but maybe not best hope for the #NeverTrump movement to throw a wrench into his plans. But Walsh is a somewhat flawed candidate himself, having to put up his own mea culpa regarding statements he’s made over the years.

Furthermore, Walsh’s campaign is simply based on opposition to Trump the person, but the wild card is whether he opposes Trump on policy and, if he does, where. Presumably Joe would be supportive of the issues he ran and won upon as a TEA Party-backed darling back in 2010, but some of those issues have been addressed over the last decade and others are unlike what the TEA Party dealt with. We don’t know from his website and not many folks have taken the time to listen to his radio show, which airs on a handful of stations in the late evening.

So Republicans now have a third choice, as Walsh joins President Trump and former Massachusetts governor (and 2016 Libertarian VP candidate) William Weld, who covers the liberal Republican end of the spectrum. But the Trump nomination will likely unfold in the minimum number of states required to clinch, with neither Walsh nor Weld being able to secure a convention delegate or a nomination at the 2020 GOP convention.

Radio days volume 26

I had one last show to do before I went on a hiatus for a few weeks thanks to some family time and other obligations. So on Friday I stepped into the ring of a show called “Ringside Politics” with host Jeff Crouere on WGSO-AM in New Orleans. (They podcast the whole show, I come in about the 3:02 mark.)

It’s actually a gig I’d been seeking for awhile, but there were a few roadblocks placed in the way: I let them get through a hurricane, sent him a copy of the book to review, and finally got him to agree to a spot on the last day I was going to do shows before I took the time away. It’s interesting because I think years ago I was on Jeff’s mailing list but somehow we lost touch.

Anyway, the one issue I had initially was originally I was slated to be on at 9:00 a.m. his time. A few days beforehand, Jeff contacted me and asked if we could push it back a half hour, which was no problem with me.

But when it came to the appointed time, my phone was silent. So I went online and checked the station only to find he was talking to another caller. After going “hmmmmm…” I texted him to ask if I was bumped; a half-hour later I got a call from the station asking if I was ready to come on.

Thus, I was a little unprepared because I was also working on a project for work that had grabbed my attention again, but once I got back in the flow I thought I did okay. The biggest issue I had was where I rolled into a break before I was informed we were coming up on it; otherwise, I would have wrapped things up better. But it was a nice overview of the TEA Party and the frustrations that we had to endure.

I probably should have held my tongue on Bobby Jindal, though. It was really intended as a passing remark, but Jeff took it and ran with it. Live and learn.

So now I’m on a radio hiatus for a little while, for reasons I will further explain in a few weeks. There are two to three outlets which are still interested in speaking to me once the fall comes so we’ll see how pursuing them goes.

Radio days volume 25

This was a special one, for several reasons.

First of all, it was a return of sorts to my hometown, on the very station which defined its local conservative radio, WSPD.

Secondly, I had some invaluable help in arranging this one since my friend Bob Densic was the intermediary between myself and their morning host, Fred LeFebvre. Bob put the wheel in motion and I grabbed on for dear life. It was definitely not the longest segment I’ve ever done, but it was the one which most reminded me of my old days doing spots live on the radio here, back when WICO-AM was at 1320 and a talk station. Perhaps it was a little detrimental because Fred and I talked over each other several times, but it was fun for me.

And a third reason was the comment from Bob afterward:

You hit on a point that was a major dividing line with our area Tea Party groups.  After the second Obama election we regrouped to discuss what went wrong.  We had so much success with the 2010 election.  Many of our group wanted to redouble our election efforts…. Focusing on finding and promoting candidates.  Myself (Back to Basics) and the leaders of a few other groups wanted to shift focus to educational and outreach programs…. Trying to win the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens.

Many Founders warned that our republic could only survive if the people were moral and well educated.  I wonder if those from many, many years ago who took our education away from the churches truly had this long term plan in mind.  Now we have a system with millions of “useful lemmings” eager to do the bidding of “the system” without truly knowing the overall goals.

We will not win this battle in the halls of Congress, in the State Houses or even our local city hall and school board. We win this battle over the backyard fence, at the water cooler and the dinner table.

God bless you brother!

E-mail from Bob Densic, 8/2/19.

As I went through doing the book, the parallel realization I had with how the TEA Party elected Donald Trump was about how corporate the larger groups trading on the TEA Party name became. Obviously the TEA Party Express was about political candidates from the start, while TEA Party Patriots tried to keep a neutral facade for a few years, but there were countless organizations who would pass their collection plates to the people who made up the TEA Party, including the “scam PACs” I devote a couple pages to in the book. (Look in the chapter “The TEA Party Is Dead.”)

If you check back to the early, early days of the modern conservative movement, you’ll notice that most of its movers and shakers were also thinkers: William F. Buckley was a good example of this. Certainly National Review was created as a means to change hearts and minds, as it was not a moneymaker according to Buckley. Yet the TEA Party tried a different approach: to change the political players by constant fundraising, which only served to disillusion the rank-and-file when nothing really changed (except the bank balances of those who were running the scams.)

Thus, having said what he did and knowing his background, I pressed Bob on another subject I brought up in my book: the belief that governing was really the hard part for the TEA Party. (This is very lightly edited for a few typos and misspellings.)

Let me separate that into two parts. First, the act of governing with conservative principles is not a challenge.  It does take twisting the norm on its head a bit.  Rather than focus on what “special request” or project someone may ask for, I try to look at a larger perspective of what challenges are rooted in our government that prevent the project or issue being quickly or efficiently solved. It’s a bit like being the 7-Up of politicians…. I am the “un-candidate”.  What can I info to make this work.

The second part involves working within the bureaucracy.  Government by design, or at least Legislative action is to be slow, deliberative and transparent.  It is very frustrating on both extremes to have to go through committees and multiple readings on certain issues, yet to see readings waived and emergency clauses attached to others.

The larger frustration is dealing with entrenched concepts of how government is to work.  We are a very blue-collar, multi-year all town.  “This is how we do this” is the most repeated phrase in all our municipal buildings.  There is a lack of acceptance of economics impact of decisions.  Our area has the highest property tax rate in the county along with some of the highest income tax rates.  Yet the answer for every department is new equipment, new manpower, new money.  The deep state exists at the local level.  Lifetime bureaucrats will do everything (or nothing through a pocket veto) to keep the status quo.  In our town as with many others it is more about who you know rather than what you know.

One major plus of being an elected official, it has provided a larger soapbox to teach from.  As I get the chance to talk about “the why” of my votes or actions, people get to hear a new perspective.  Too often my past educational efforts through Back to Basics ended up as preaching to the choir.  As a councilman I talk with people who would never take a Saturday morning or week night to learn about the Constitution.  A bit like Paul, I can preach to my Roman captors.

Bob is actually a very good example of being accountable, as he regularly engages with his public on social media to explain the governmental process. But he points out yet another reason hearts and minds have to be changed in the proper manner before political fortunes improve: notice the emphasis on “it’s always been done this way” and political fiefdoms. (Fred brought up the same point: if you have certain last names in Toledo, you will most likely be a Democrat and almost become a shoo-in for elected office no matter the qualifications – or lack thereof. I’m sure they are on third-generation elected officials in the same family, just like here in Maryland: Ben Cardin got his first political seat when his uncle with the same name left it – now it belongs to Cardin’s nephew Jon Cardin. )

So this edition of radio days was more than just a radio show, but the process of keeping a kinship going. However, I do have another gig coming up on August 16 in the great state of Louisiana once again.

A thought on tragedy

Sometimes I think I read too much social media.

As most who are not under rocks or out of range of news broadcasts know, the last few days have featured two mass shootings, one in Ohio and one in Texas. But rather than focus on the victims, these incidents have become political footballs as each side of the political aisle tries to blame the other, at times darkly intoning that the history of these shooters is being whitewashed in order to make their side look bad.

Yet there is one fact that remains: the perpetrators (one of whom survived in Texas, the other being killed by police in Ohio) decided to take a weapon ordinarily reserved for self-defense and use it in an offensive manner, with a provocation that existed only in their twisted minds. (And note: when I say “weapon ordinarily reserved for self-defense” I mean guns as a class of weapon, not the specific type or caliber selected by these individuals.)

It goes without saying that those on the other political side from me will complain that “thoughts and prayers” are ineffective and the time has come for significant action, such as banning so-called “assault rifles” and “weapons of war” from our streets. Yet consider where these perpetrators chose to create their mayhem – it’s been reported that the one who was killed went on his rampage for less than a minute before being engaged by law enforcement and shot to death. On the other hand, the Texas assailant chose a “gun-free zone” and indeed, it’s apparent most respected that rule – the one who reportedly was carrying chose not to respond in kind for fear the police would believe he was the shooter, so he led others to safety.

I’m just not convinced more gun restrictions will be the answer because that cat’s long since been out of the bag. People won’t give up their guns without a fight, and that’s a fight few in law enforcement really wish to tangle with.

Sadly, I’m afraid the fix is not one that can be immediately implemented. for it’s a generational change that has less to do with weaponry and more to do with respect for life. It’s often been noted that rifles and shotguns were often brought to school a couple generations ago, although in those cases they were locked in a truck in the school parking lot because they were used for hunting. Let’s assume that was so, then ask why school shootings weren’t a weekly occurrence?

And it’s funny – the more we talk about anti-bullying policies and legislation in school, the worse these incidents seem to be becoming. Both shooters in these incidents were young men, under 25, so they’ve grown up in this era of low bullying tolerance and so-called peaceful conflict resolution, yet they struck back in this manner.

Maybe if we got back to the idea that life is sacred because there’s a higher power who commanded us not to kill, well, perhaps we will quit blaming the inanimate object. But that’s not coming anytime soon.

Radio days volume 24

To prove that I’m in no real rush to break news, these radio spots occurred over a week ago. But seeing as the big push to secure interviews has slowed down to a manageable trickle – that and being busy with some actual, real life adulting-type stuff rather than my usual fun and games – it took me a little time to get to this wrapup, which will cover a total of four interviews I did during the week of July 15.

Unfortunately, the very first one I did doesn’t seem to be available on a podcast. It’s too bad because the introduction I had to this small-town Texas host was, “Would love to visit with you on the air…. and off!” Brownwood, Texas (a city of just under 20,000) is literally in the center of the state and would seem to have a very receptive audience. J.R. and Celinda were nice enough hosts, and they focused a lot of the conversation (as I recall it) on Donald Trump, which was fine. I just remember that it seemed I got to talk at some length and it went pretty quickly.

Nor have I had any luck with my second radio spot of the week, that of “Real Talk With Riggin.” I truly enjoyed speaking with Faune Riggin, and maybe that podcast is out there someplace, but it appears they only keep a rolling tally of the last 10 or so and that doesn’t cover last week anymore.

Faune was quite well-informed because I sent her a copy of the book (at her request.) And she sounded like she was someone definitely sympathetic to the TEA Party aims, so it was a nice conversation. I remember being pretty pleased with it at its conclusion.

On the other hand, my appearance that Friday was an experience I hadn’t come across before – discussing the book with someone left of center. But Dave Priest and I had a very good conversation, although in listening to it I noticed I have some odd fallback phrases, like per se. Hey, as long as I informed the fine folks of Myrtle Beach and got them interested in the book I suppose I’m doing my task. It was definitely an overview, but for 15 minutes I think I did a reasonable job. Because it was sent to me as an .mp3 file, the show is available from my book site.

Later on Friday I got to tape a segment for broadcast on the following day, which would have been back on the 20th. It’s a show called “Political Vibe” and it airs in the relatively rural area around Chambersburg, PA. (It’s interesting to note that many of my appearances have come in smaller communities, although I’ve also been in the “major league” city of Cincinnati as well as high-minor towns like Richmond, Fresno, and Wichita.)

That show was very enjoyable because, first of all, I got a couple long segments in – no squeezing in between traffic and weather – and second of all, it was hosted by people who had themselves marched with the TEA Party. (In that respect it was a lot like the show I did with Carol Ross.) We had a great conversation, and it was one of those where I sort of forgot I was being taped for later broadcast – except for how Michele did the segment intro. I even got to listen to it online because it was repeated twice on the same day at 11 a.m. and 11 p.m.

So it appears I am beginning to wind down the radio tour – I have a few more show prospects but I’m going to try and wrap up this leg by the middle of August, for several reasons. However, I have a very special show tomorrow (the 1st) at 7:30 a.m. because it will be in the city of my birth, Toledo, Ohio, and WSPD-AM – the station which introduced me to talk radio giants like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, among others. I’ll be joining host Fred LeFebvre for a segment, which will probably be over before I know it!

Programming note: Even though tomorrow is the first Thursday of the month, the fact that it’s literally the 1st and the Shorebirds played a night game last night – well, we will do July’s Shorebirds of the Month on the 8th.

I also made another executive decision to push back the August Shorebirds of the Month to the second week in September because, should the Delmarva nine advance to the SAL Championship Series, there will be a Shorebird Position Player and Pitcher of the Month for September, too. (If not, I have to add in the stats for the few September games.) Barring rainouts, errant tropical weather, and so forth, that would assure the Shorebirds play at least 7 games in the month, with potential to play up to 10.

Who’s in and who’s out? Dems debate round 2

This is one of those things which sneaked up on me. I had meant to re-seed my Democrat contenders earlier this month before the second round of debates at month’s end, but never got around to it. (Lining up a radio book tour takes some time, you know?) So I’ll just use my seedings from May, which are still relatively accurate.

This time debate #1 will feature:

  • #2 Bernie Sanders
  • #3 Pete Buttigieg
  • #5 Beto O’Rourke
  • #6 Elizabeth Warren
  • #7 Amy Klobuchar
  • #10 John Hickenlooper
  • #11 Steve Bullock
  • #17 John Delaney
  • #19 Tim Ryan
  • #22 Marianne Williamson

Last time around the first debate was the “kiddie table” debate, but this time they have some star power. Arguably, though, three of the top four (a number that could even be six of the top seven) seeds in this debate are trending the wrong way since the seedings were last established. Now I would say Elizabeth Warren is the one to beat.

This is also interesting in that, after the top four in this field, four of the most pragmatic Democrat candidates are all clustered together here in Klobuchar, Hickenlooper, Bullock, and Delaney. Honestly I think at least two of that four are out by the time we get to the September debates.

Meanwhile, I believe Williamson was added to this debate to make Bernie look sane by comparison.

Now for debate #2:

  • #1 Joe Biden
  • #4 Kamala Harris
  • #8 Cory Booker
  • #9 Kirsten Gillibrand
  • #12 Michael Bennet
  • #13 Andrew Yang
  • #14 Bill de Blasio
  • #16 Jay Inslee
  • #18 Julian Castro
  • #21 Tulsi Gabbard

It’s a “big f—in’ deal” that Biden and Harris are placed together because that’s the drama for this debate. This is bad news for the other eight, although some may get a word in edgewise here or there. It’s a good night to be Tulsi Gabbard, who’s beat the odds to make it in again – she’s the only other woman in the field since Gillibrand is really a potted plant.

For the bottom-tier guys, well, sorry about your luck.

And speaking of the bottom tier, there are some who were again left out in the cold as well as the new contenders who haven’t been seeded yet.

  • #20 Seth Moulton
  • #23 Mike Gravel
  • #24 Wayne Messam
  • Joe Sestak
  • Tom Steyer

Don’t forget that original #15 seed Eric Swalwell has dropped out.

Leaving aside the lack of seriousness the small-town mayor Messam and nearly 90-year-old Gravel bring to the race, you have to wonder if Moulton’s time is running out. He’s a distant second in his own state to Warren, and at just 40 years old, Moulton has plenty of time to ponder a run in 2024 or 2028 – at least one of which will be an open-seat race.

Maybe, if I think about it, I’ll reseed after this round of debates. Then again, August looks like a busy month for me.

Odds and ends number 95

Back with bloggy goodness in bite-sized chunks of a couple sentences to a few paragraphs. Let’s see what the e-mail bag has in store.

A pro-life concern

Political e-mail is often chock full of hyperbole, but I found a recent e-mail from the folks at the Maryland Pro-Life Alliance PAC interesting – is there really a renewed pro-abortion push here? They call it a “political attack group,” a 501 (c)(4) which “will be able to take massive checks from outside Maryland starting from Day 1.” But I didn’t find any news story on the subject, which makes it sound like just so much hype.

To me, theirs is the kind of e-mail that sets back the cause. Don’t just tell me there’s an AP story, give me a link – for all I know this was three years ago. It’s bad enough that a group with less than $1,000 in the bank, and a group that didn’t spend a dime on candidates in the 2018 election, is asking for money to counter this phantom threat.

More bad news for Maryland business

The headline of a Maryland Public Policy Institute business climate study made it sound like businesses are becoming less optimistic about business conditions in the state overall, yet they remain relatively positive.

But buried in the remaining information was an interesting dichotomy between businesses along the I-95 corridor, where companies believing the state was business-friendly prevailed by a 49-16 average margin, and outstate companies which only deemed the state business-friendly by a 39-35 count. Given that the overall mark was 46-19, it’s apparent that the outstate entities were but a small portion of the survey – probably no more than 15%. However, that’s 100% of the issue here on Delmarva.

Add to this the war on plastic – which is in the process of having the good guys lose in Delaware – as well as the laughable job creation numbers proponents of the maglev boondoggle are touting, and we may have seen an economic peak on Delmarva until people with real sanity are placed back in government, at least in the view of the MPPI.

But their annual magnum opus is the Annapolis Report, which grades the Maryland General Assembly on its work for the session. If they were a college student, the MGA would be on academic probation.

The Democrats’ deplorable problem

For decades the prevailing belief was that Republicans were for the business man while Democrats were for the working man. In 2016, however, that philosophy was turned on its head as thousands and thousands of union workers ignored their Big Labor bosses who backed Hillary Clinton and pulled the lever for Donald Trump, enabling him to win in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

But, as David Catron recently argued in The American Spectator, the Democrats who think those voters are the key to 2020 victory are barking up the wrong tree. He contends:

(S)upporting Trump simply isn’t the done thing in polite society. To do so is to risk loss of social status – if not outright ostracism – and open conflict with friends or family. Trump supporters mislead pollsters or simply refuse to answer their questions pursuant to similar psychological and social incentives. All of which leads to a lot of confusion concerning who it is that supports President Trump and precisely why. This, in turn, renders it very difficult for round heel politicians like Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren to pander to “working class” voters they badly need to “win back” to the Democratic fold in the 2020 election cycle.

David Catron, “Why the Dems Will Never Win Back Trump Voters,” The American Spectator, June 24, 2019.

I’ve talked about this a couple times on the radio, and Catron makes the argument as well: I sensed this back in 2016, which is why I did “Bradley effect” updates on the Presidential race. If you believed the actual polls on a state-by-state basis, Hillary Clinton should have had upward of 300 electoral votes. But if you assume the polls underestimated Trump by five points, your blue map becomes a shade of pink that carries The Donald to victory. My last couple “Bradley effect” maps suggested a narrow Trump win so I wasn’t as shocked as I thought I might be when it really happened.

On another deplorable front, the pull of Big Labor doesn’t seem to be as strong as it used to be. I remember writing on this situation for The Patriot Post back in 2014, but even after another half-decade of trying the UAW still can’t get its hooks into an auto plant south of the Mason-Dixon line, failing again to unionize the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee. This latest update comes from my friends at the Capital Research Center.

More on the Presidential sweepstakes

I have a number of different items here.

Let’s start with Erick Erickson, who points out in a brief but concise Resurgent article that Joe Biden’s not a racist – it’s just proof of how far the Democrats have moved the Overton window on that subject.

And if you want bat-crap crazy Democrats, look no further than the Indivisible crowd.

After the recent Democrat debates, the Astroturf group polled its followers and found that their preferred candidates didn’t line up with the ones on top of the mainstream polls:

We asked Indivisibles to identify which candidates they are considering voting for and which they are definitely not. The results revealed that the historic candidacies of women, people of color and LGBTQ candidates are faring well among the movement and have plenty of room to grow as the field narrows. It also revealed that some of the presumed frontrunners may hit a ceiling with activists, given how many Indivisibles say they aren’t considering them at all.

Indivisible news release, July 2, 2019.

In other words, identity politics is alive and well. “(I)f the election were held today, 35% of people said they would vote for (Elizabeth) Warren and 31% selected (Kamala) Harris,” they said. Compare this to the Morning Consult poll from yesterday (July 16) where Warren and Harris combined for just 27% of the vote, a number that still trailed frontrunner Joe Biden. In fact, those “women, people of color, and LGBTQ candidates” only account for about 40% of the vote, trailing those white males in the top 2 slots and scattered among the rest.

I’m not going to sit and do the math, but I daresay that Indivisible isn’t much of a movement when the candidates 66% of their group support can’t even muster half that amount of support in a wider poll.

Who’s really gerrymandering?

This is a fascinating study from the CRC. While the Democrats contend that independent redistricting commissions will best address the issue of gerrymandering (which, of course, only became a problem after the TEA Party wave election of 2010, which got the break of getting to draw districts for this decade), this study suggests the hype from Democrats is overblown.

Two more states – but a bunch to go

If you’re a fan of the Constitution Party, the good news is that they kept ballot access in two states (Arkansas and North Carolina) and their goal is access in 35 states. Maryland will probably not be one of them because their 10,000 signature threshold is daunting for the two minor parties which generally qualify for the ballot, the Green Party and Libertarian Party, let alone a smaller entity such as the CP. In Delaware they need over double their number of registered voters by the end of 2019 to qualify, which seems unlikely unless a concerted effort to flip members of other minor parties occurs.

And last…

You may notice this is the day of Tawes, but there’s no pictorial.

After 13 or 14 years of going, I just lost interest in the event the last few years. And considering this is a pretty much dead year on the election calendar – no 2020 Senate election and not much going on in the Congressional realm – it was not worth taking a day off to go and overpay for food, a little bit of beer, and a crapton of diet Pepsi. Since I’m not an invited guest to the tents where the real action is, I’m happier being home.

To my friends who were there, I hope you had a good time. But it just isn’t that much fun for me anymore.

Radio days volume 23

With the emphasis this time on “days”…

Last week was something I had never tried before, but The Rise and Fall of the TEA Party is creating conversation and interest. So I was on SIX different radio shows in six days, although they weren’t distributed equally: I had Monday and Thursday off but did three Friday.

The week began on Sunday night when I spoke to John Whitmer, who does a Sunday night show on KNSS-AM and FM in Wichita, Kansas.

Now that I’ve listened to it again, it wasn’t quite as bad as I thought it was initially. But there are days I write better than I talk and that was one. I felt like I had vapor lock a couple times, but those pauses that seemed like 10 seconds of dead air to me weren’t that bad. I did hit most of the points and John seemed patient enough – I didn’t know he had a guest right after me so maybe he was rushing through it too.

So, to say the least, I was really, really nervous about Tuesday’s show with Carol Ross and The Ross Report on KPEL-FM in Lafayette, Louisiana, particularly with Whitmer’s show fresh on my mind.

But for whatever reason, I got my mojo back in about two minutes with Carol and it was an outstanding pick-me-up. Maybe it’s because I knew she was prepared for the show: she had actually read my RAF website and the sample chapter, then bought the book. So she had questions about the book I could answer and we had a wonderful HOUR. (I was expecting more like two segments.) Of course, the ONE SHOW where they couldn’t get me a podcast was that one. Complete bummer, because we had a great conversation.

With that conversation out of the way, I felt much more at ease going into Wednesday’s talk with Gail Fallen and “Mornings with Gail” on KFKA-AM in Greeley. Colorado. And Gail was actually rather funny; as you can tell we had a lot of laughs. I come on at the 17:25 mark, although getting to listen to the whole hour meant I could get the promos too.

(Now about that train reference: I work within 40 yards of an active railroad siding. A train comes by, usually twice a day, and this one just so happened to be coming past and blaring its horn just as I went on air. I was sure they could hear it on the other end!)

One thing that impressed me about Gail is how she used the information with which I provided her. In doing this media blitz, I have created a press kit of sorts and she certainly reviewed it before I came on – and this was one of the more quickly-arranged stops on the tour. But I came off that one on a Rocky Mountain high because it was an enjoyable experience.

So I was still in a pretty good way come Friday, which I knew was going to be interesting as I piled three shows on top of one another. The latter two were scheduled just last week, but my first stop was on a station I remembered from my days at Miami University, 55KRC in Cincinnati. (More formally, WKRC-AM, but they have gone by 55KRC based on their 550 frequency for decades; even before the similarly-named sitcom WKRP in Cincinnati made its debut.)

After the hour I spent with Carol Ross a few days earlier, my chat with Brian Thomas was my best conversation of the week. It had good flow, I got most of my points across, and it was obvious he was nicely prepared – in fact, he links to my website from his website, too. This meant I didn’t need to spend precious moments pushing it myself. I think it was because Brian’s interview was planned well in advance – I seem to recall we set the date back in late June when I reached out to stations in the Midwest. (There’s another Ohio station I was supposed to be set up with, but somehow that’s fallen through for the moment.)

And I could relate very well to Brian’s embarrassment about John Kasich – how many of us have backed a candidate we swore up and down would be conservative because he or she talked the talk, only to find out their walk was a headlong run to embrace the Left?

Later that afternoon I returned to Wichita, Kansas to do a show called “The Voice of Reason” on KQAM-AM with host Andy Hooser. Whether fortunately or unfortunately, I can’t seem to find a podcast on it.

Unlike Brian’s, this was a spot which was arranged rather quickly – Andy reached out to me on Wednesday and originally wanted to do Thursday, but I like to have a couple days to prepare so Friday it was. Initially I thought Andy’s show was on a group of stations, but in looking deeper into it I found it’s just on the one in Wichita. (From what I gather it recently became a midday show, too, moving out of a morning slot.)

I think it was an okay performance on my part from what I recall, although I remember more of pacing around my back yard – with two dogs sleeping in the house and a plumber who had fortunately had finished up just before I started, my mind wasn’t completely on his show. For some reason I don’t get the comfort level at home that I do when I’m on radio shows from my workplace – aside from the random train it’s normally pretty quiet there and I know the boss is cool with it (I just stay late to make up the time.)

And that carried over to my last radio show on Friday, reaching across to the Left Coast to be on The Trevor Carey Show on KALZ-FM and KRZR-AM out of Fresno, California. (I come in around the 21:30 mark, after a lengthy discussion of immigration raids and such.)

It took me awhile to get my bearings with Trevor, but toward the end I thought I made several good points, especially the mission field comments. Trevor definitely has some good bumper music, too.

And I get the impression from the advertising and rhetorical style that Trevor is looking for a younger audience, which fits well with what I’m looking for, too. People of my generation aren’t going to make a lasting change as much as those of a younger age can be taught in the way they need to go.

So this was an unprecedented week, one which may not be repeated anytime soon: I still have a number of leads out there as well as one show slated for Tuesday, but this week was probably the peak of on-air encounters. I’ll keep plugging away to spread the word, though.

Radio days volume 22

It took me about a week to get to this for a couple of reasons, with the most important being that I was hoping to stack this up with a second appearance I was working on – alas, through a series of misadventures and perhaps missed opportunities that stop of the Rise and Fall radio tour appears to have gone by the wayside, hopefully just for the time being.

The second appearance for the RAF tour came at a non-local station, WNTW-AM 820 and its repeaters, W249CI-FM 97.7 and W224EB-FM 92.7, out of Richmond, Virginia. So how did I get on a station like that? Well, let’s just say I’m doing a little bit of research and marketing and in that effort I came across a local host by the name of Craig Johnson, whose on-air persona is Brother Craig, the Hatchet Man. The show is called “The Really Real Deal.” It’s also simulcast on social media.

So why local hosts? I figure it’s easier to get on those shows in the medium and smaller markets, which is where a lot of my target audience lives. Would I like to be on Rush, Hannity, or Mark Levin? Yeah, but that’s not something a heretofore small-time author can realistically aspire to out of the gate. I figure I can start small like a ball player does, working my way through the minor leagues of local hosts before making my pitch to the major syndicated programs.

As I found in doing the research, this station is quite conservative in content and it appeared Brother Craig would be the most receptive host. So I sent him my elevator pitch and was on the air with him less than two weeks later.

To say the least, he has the confidence and bravado swagger of a Rush Limbaugh. He is also a snappy dresser – thank goodness this wasn’t on Skype because I was in my work clothes (business casual.) Since this is a Facebook video I’m not sure it will properly embed by itself but I think I got it to work:

If you don’t mind a lengthy Bible study Brother Craig goes into feel free to watch the whole thing; otherwise I come on about the 1:15:00 mark.

Now let me preface this by saying I didn’t listen to the previous day’s show, but one thing I was very disappointed by was the lack of promotion for me as a guest. I would hope he didn’t treat people like David Horowitz or Walter E. Williams (among the roster he claims as previous guests) that way. But the average listener had no idea I was coming on until I was put on coming out of the commercial segment. I’ll grant, though, that the date of my appearance was (unbeknownst to me until I visited his social media this week to find out if this show was up) was among his last at the station. (From what I’ve gathered, Brother Craig has a brokered program, meaning he pays for his time. Fortunately, I have also found he will soon have a new radio home in an even larger market.) So I’m sure I wasn’t foremost in mind – I just appreciate the opportunity.

As for the interview itself, I thought I did a reasonable job of explaining my book and its points, except I wanted to top off the statement about Doug Hoffman by noting the TEA Party’s shotgun marriage to the GOP began with the 2009-10 Scott Brown Senate campaign before I got a bit sidetracked by something Brother Craig said. It was interesting to note that he also spoke at his first TEA Party in 2009 as a longtime activist. Certainly I had enough time to make most of my points, since I was held over through the bottom-of-the-hour news (my segment began at 5:20 p.m.)

All in all, I thought I did a reasonable job of selling the book – yes, I could have done better and hopefully I will with the segments I have already scheduled – at least one and likely a second that should be nailed down this week. (On that one, I may see if I can do it after the holiday instead. Meanwhile, in the interim between when I first started this Saturday and now, I found out I have two more hot prospects!) The one I already have a date for is a return to one of my old stomping grounds so I look forward to it.

Finally, pinned to the top of my social media page for Rise and Fall is the video of my reading from last Saturday, in case you’re interested.

Believe it or not, we get another one!

Today marks a bittersweet anniversary: it was four years ago today that the best Republican choice entered the Presidential fray. Unfortunately, Bobby Jindal never got any traction in the race as it was already apparent that Donald Trump was going to get all the media attention after he announced just eight days before.

But while Jindal was the unlucky thirteenth to enter a 2016 Republican field that was still to expand by four more aspirants (Chris Christie, Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Jim Gilmore were still to come), the Democratic 2020 contender who announced yesterday is the 25th in what’s become a massive field. Needless to say, he won’t be in the debates this week and that’s a shame because he may be the only one running in a centrist, foreign policy-focused lane.

Retired Admiral and former Congressman Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania is probably not going to play the game of “can you top this?” in the headlong rush to the left that the Democratic field’s Overton window is undertaking. Moreover, in a more perfect world for him, he would have been in the race already but there were some health issues in his family which came first. Maybe he figures better late than never.

As Joe notes:

What Americans most want today is someone who is accountable to them, above self, above party, above any special interest … a President who has the depth of global experience to restore America’s leadership in the world to protect our American Dream at home … and one who is trusted to restructure policies where too many see only the growth of inequity not of the economy.

Announcement by presidential candidate Joe Sestak, June 23, 2019.

I don’t think Sestak has a chance to win the nomination, but I believe his entry will impact the race. He may only get a few percentage points but those will come from voters who may have backed Joe Biden until he moved left on a number of issues. Your old-line Democrat voters in rural areas will like Sestak because of the military background and the fact he represented a working-class state. If Biden weren’t from Delaware, Sestak would do well there and may do reasonably well in Maryland should he still be in the race. He may well punch above his weight.

Thinning the field

I missed this last week, or should I say I didn’t get to post on it right away. But we learned who was in and who was out of next week’s first two Democrat presidential candidate debates. Obviously the front-runners made the criteria established by the Democratic National Committee, but there were a couple surprising omissions in light of how I seeded the race a few weeks ago. (See how useful that is for constructing a narrative within my website? Now you have to go back and check that out.)

Each night’s field was somewhat randomly set, and there was the idea of spreading “top-tier” candidates out so that neither night was overly weighted toward one group – but as it turned out they unwittingly came close to the “kiddie table” debate concept employed by the 2016 Republicans.

Without further ado, and listed in my previous seeding order, this is the lineup for debate #1:

  • #5 Beto O’Rourke
  • #6 Elizabeth Warren
  • #7 Amy Klobuchar
  • #8 Cory Booker
  • #14 Bill de Blasio
  • #16 Jay Inslee
  • #17 John Delaney
  • #18 Julian Castro
  • #19 Tim Ryan
  • #21 Tulsi Gabbard

To be quite honest, the star of this debate is probably Warren, who’s picked up some polling support lately. But there is an interesting dynamic at play among the three women included and this field could end up helping Tulsi Gabbard.

As for the men, the five lower-seeded men are fortunate to be placed in a field that has the fading star of Beto and gaffe-prone Cory Booker. If any of them have a robust debate, they could move up in the polls – especially as the front-runners take shots at each other.

Here’s debate #2:

  • #1 Joe Biden
  • #2 Bernie Sanders
  • #3 Pete Buttigieg
  • #4 Kamala Harris
  • #9 Kirsten Gillibrand
  • #10 John Hickenlooper
  • #12 Michael Bennet
  • #13 Andrew Yang
  • #15 Eric Swalwell
  • #22 Marianne Williamson

The top 4 are either going to destroy each other or bury the other six. It sort of reminds me of the old Big 10 days when all the teams played each other but you knew it would be Michigan-Ohio State for the title at the end – we just have four teams instead of two, but they are all way ahead of the rest. And I would be curious to see what sort of Ron Paul effect the non-politicians Williamson and Yang have on the field here – after all, you can’t out-outsider them in this group.

The non-contenders who didn’t get in:

  • #11 Steve Bullock
  • #20 Seth Moulton
  • #23 Mike Gravel
  • #24 Wayne Messam

They are still soldiering on, hoping to get into the next round of debates in July. Bullock claims he’s already qualified, which is possible because he got a very late start in the campaign – obviously that will knock someone else out if he makes it in. Moulton is probably the one serious candidate most likely to drop out because Messam is whining about not getting a town hall meeting and Gravel was simply in it to get on the debate stage.

This has inspired another post but I think I’ll save it for next week, just before the debates.