Will Biden Ever Sign A Letter "In Solidarity?"

 

I made up my mind about Joe Biden in the 1970s-- that he was my enemy and that I would always oppose him. Today, he's what stands between us and Trumpism soooo... I'm still not voting for him but, I'm rooting for him. Or, as I like to tell myself, I'm rooting that Trump lose... in a landslide. I grapple with intellectual dishonesty when I think about it. Imagine though the letter I'm about to share with you came from Biden and not from Bernie. Bernie sent it to his supporters yesterday but imagine for a moment it came from Biden. Could anyone resist being enthusiastic about seeing him win and become president? If you didn't read it already... well, this is what the Democrat running for president against Trump should be saying-- loud and clear and all over the media. But instead... Obama stuck us with Joe Biden.

This country faces an unprecedented set of crises. We are struggling with a pandemic that has already cost us over 200,000 lives.

We have an economy in which we have a grotesque level of income and wealth inequality, where the middle class is being decimated, where millions of workers have lost their jobs and half of our people continue to work paycheck to paycheck-- many for starvation wages.

We are living in the moment when climate change is ravaging this planet, leading to massive fires on the West Coast, drought and unprecedented levels of extreme weather disturbances all across the globe.

We are the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all people as a right, over 90 million Americans are uninsured or under-insured, and we pay by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.

All of these issues, and others, are enormously important and should be the issues that are being debated in this campaign. But, today, I'm not going to talk about any of them.

What I am going to talk about is something that, in my wildest dreams, I never thought I would be discussing. And that is the need to make certain that the President of the United States, if he loses this election, will abide by the will of the voters and leave office peacefully.

What I will be discussing today is the danger that this country faces from a president who is a pathological liar, who has strong authoritarian tendencies, who neither understands nor respects our constitution and who is prepared to undermine American democracy in order to stay in power.

With less than 6 weeks left to go in this campaign it is my fervent hope that all Americans-- Democrats, Republicans, independents, progressives, moderates, conservatives-- come together to defend American democracy, our constitution and the rule of law. We must ensure, in this unprecedented moment in American history that this is an election that is free and fair, an election in which voters are not intimidated, an election in which all votes are counted and an election in which the loser accepts the results.

This is not just an election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. This is an election between Donald Trump and democracy-- and democracy must win.

The United States is the oldest continuous democracy in the modern world. We held elections in the middle of a Civil War in 1864. We held free and fair elections during World War I, during the Great Depression, and during World War II. After all of those elections, held in extremely difficult circumstances, the loser acknowledged defeat and the winner was inaugurated and took office. That is what America is all about. That’s what democracy is all about.

But today, under Donald Trump, we have a president who has little respect for our constitution or the rule of law. Today, that peaceful transition of power, the bedrock of American democracy, is being threatened like never before.

I am not in the habit of quoting former President Ronald Reagan, but I think something that he said in his first inaugural address makes the point about how important-- how precious-- is this part of our heritage. I quote: “The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place as it has for almost two centuries and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every 4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle."

Protecting this “orderly transfer of authority” as President Reagan characterized it, this miracle, is absolutely essential if we together-- all of us, Republicans, Democrats, Independents-- want to keep faith with the American ideals we hold so dear and with the sacrifices that so many made in order to protect our democracy.

And in that regard I think it is terribly important that we actually listen to, and take seriously, what Donald Trump is saying.

Several weeks ago, speaking at the Republican National Convention, Trump said, “The only way they can take this election away from us is if this is a rigged election.” What is remarkable about that statement is that he made it at a time when almost every national poll had him behind and when he was trailing in polls in most battleground states.

Think about what that statement means. What he is saying is that if he wins the election, that's great. But if he loses, it’s rigged, because the only way, the only way, he can lose is if it's rigged. And if it’s rigged, then he is not leaving office. Heads I win. Tails you lose. In other words, in Trump's mind, there is no conceivable way that he should leave office.

And just last night Donald Trump went even further down the path of authoritarianism by being the first president in the history of this country to refuse to commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the election.

When asked by a reporter in the White House briefing room: "Win, lose or draw in this election, will you commit here today for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?" Trump responded:

“We’re going to have to see what happens. You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster. We want to get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful-- there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation.”

That’s not his choice. That’s for the American people to determine. Let us be very clear. There is nothing in our constitution or in our laws that give Donald Trump the privilege of deciding whether or not he will step aside if he loses. In the United States the president does not determine who can or cannot vote and what ballots will be counted. That may be what his friend Putin does in Russia. It may be what is done in other authoritarian countries. But it is not and will not be done in America. This is a democracy.

I do understand that Donald Trump is a billionaire, or so he says. I do understand that he was born to a very wealthy family and, from his earliest days, was able to get anything he wanted because his family was rich and his family was powerful. I do understand that when you’re rich and you’re powerful you don’t have to pay taxes like ordinary people and that it’s easy for you to avoid the military draft. I do understand that when you’re rich and you’re powerful you can buy politicians and get hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate welfare for your real estate empire.

But this I also understand. No matter how rich and powerful you may be, no matter how arrogant and narcissistic you may be, no matter how much you think you can get anything you want, let me make this clear to Donald Trump: Too many people have fought and died to defend American democracy. You are not going to destroy it. The American people will not allow that to happen.

Despite all of the evidence, Trump continues to be obsessed with the belief that there is massive voter fraud in this country.

In 2017, after he won the presidency, Trump insisted that he would have won the popular vote, which he lost by 3 million votes, if “millions of illegal votes had not been cast." There is absolutely no evidence of that being true. In fact, it is totally preposterous to believe that millions of votes, or any significant number of votes at all, were cast illegally. This is an assertion supported by no one. Not Democratic officials. Not Republican officials. No one. And yet that is what Trump said after he won.

There have been numerous studies done on the issue of voter fraud in our country. They have all concluded essentially the same thing. Voter fraud in the United States of America is extremely rare.

A study by Dartmouth University found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2016 election.

An article in the New York Times from December 18, 2016 stated: “In an election in which more than 137.7 million Americans cast ballots, election and law enforcement officials in 26 states and the District of Columbia-- Democratic-leaning, Republican-leaning and in-between-- said that so far they knew of no credible allegations of fraudulent voting. Officials in another eight states said they knew of only one allegation... In Georgia, where more than 4.1 million ballots were cast, officials said they had opened 25 inquiries into “suspicious voting or election-related activity.” But inquiries to all 50 states (every one but Kansas responded) found no states that reported indications of widespread fraud.”

A report by the Brennan Center for Justice reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. The report concluded that it is more likely that an American, “will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”

Even the conservative Heritage Foundation, which maintains a database on election fraud, could only find 143 criminal convictions of mail-in voter fraud out of 250 million mail-in votes cast over the past 20 years, a rate of 0.00006 percent.

But you don’t have to trust me on this issue. Benjamin Ginsburg, one of the leading Republican experts on elections, a man who served as national counsel to the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign, a man who played a major role for the Republican Party in the 2000 Florida recount, and who co-chaired the bipartisan 2013 Presidential Commission on Election Administration, recently wrote in the Washington Post, “The truth is that after decades of looking for illegal voting, there’s no proof of widespread fraud. At most, there are isolated incidents-- by both Democrats and Republicans. Elections are not rigged."

Let me repeat from one of the Republican Party’s leading experts on elections: “The truth is that after decades of looking for illegal voting, there’s no proof of widespread fraud. At most, there are isolated incidents-- by both Democrats and Republicans. Elections are not rigged.”

And if even the statement of Mr. Ginsburg is not good enough for you, here is what the Trump administration’s own voting integrity commission reported. According to an analysis of administration documents by the Associated Press, Trump’s commission uncovered “no evidence to support claims of widespread voter fraud,” and disbanded in 2018.

Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tamped down concerns about mail-in ballots last month, saying “Many parts of our country vote by mail. Oregon, Washington and Colorado have voted by mail for years.”

And yet we have a president who calls mail-in ballots “a hoax” and “a scam.”

Trump's strategy to delegitimize this election and to stay in office if he loses is not complicated. Finding himself behind in many polls, he is attempting massive voter suppression. He and his Republican colleagues are doing everything they can to make it harder and harder for people to vote. In addition, he is sowing the seeds of chaos, confusion and conspiracy theories by casting doubt on the integrity of this election and, if he loses, justifying why he should remain in office.

In an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News, Trump refused to say that he would leave office if he lost. Asked to give a direct answer on whether he would accept the election results, Trump refused. He said, "I have to see. No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no, and I didn’t last time either." Pretty much what he said yesterday.

In the middle of a pandemic Trump made clear that he wants to defund the Postal Service in order to limit the use of mail-in ballots. In an interview on August 13, discussing a possible deal for a relief package that would have funded the post office, Trump let the cat out of the bag by admitting that, "If we don't make a deal, that means they don't get the money. That means they can't have universal mail-in voting; they just can't have it.”

In other words, what Trump is saying to tens of millions of Americans is that at a time when over 200,000 people have already died from the coronavirus, you have a choice: You can either risk your health or even your life by walking into a voting booth, or you can’t vote. How disgusting is that?

Amazingly, at the very same time Trump is making completely baseless allegations about voter fraud, last month he urged his supporters in North Carolina to try voting twice, which is a felony.

In order to advance his plan for mass voter suppression, the Trump campaign filed a lawsuit in Nevada, which fortunately was dismissed, challenging the state’s mail-in voting laws.

In July, Trump used false claims of voter fraud to propose delaying this year’s election, which he does not have the power to do. This was so outrageous that Steven Calabresi, the co-founder of the conservative Federalist Society, wrote that it was “grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate.”

Last week, Trump told his supporters at a rally in Nevada that he “was entitled” to serve a third term, which is obviously a violation of the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment.

On Saturday, Trump suggested to his supporters in North Carolina that he might sign an executive order to prevent Joe Biden from becoming president.

Trump has also urged his supporters to become “poll watchers,” but what he is really saying is he wants his supporters, some of whom are members of armed militias, to intimidate voters. We’re already seeing this in Virginia, where early voters were confronted by Trump supporters, and election officials in Fairfax County said that some voters and polling staff felt intimidated.

On and on it goes. Every day, over and over again, Trump is making it harder for the American people to participate in the political process and is attempting to delegitimize the outcome of this election so that if he loses he can remain in office.

The concerns that I am raising today are not just mine alone, and are not just concerns shared by progressives and Democrats.

Miles Taylor, a lifelong Republican who previously served as chief of staff inside the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security, warned that there is nothing that Trump will not do or say to defeat Biden.

"Put nothing past Donald Trump," Taylor told The Associated Press. "He will do anything to win. If that means climbing over other people, climbing over his own people, or climbing over U.S. law, he will do it. People are right to be concerned."

Well, I agree with Mr. Taylor. I am concerned. I am very concerned.

Last week, my former Senate colleague Dan Coats, Trump’s own former Director of National Intelligence, published a piece in the New York Times calling for a high-level bipartisan and nonpartisan commission to oversee the election to reassure all Americans that it has been carried out fairly. Coats wrote, “The most urgent task American leaders face is to ensure that the election’s results are accepted as legitimate. Electoral legitimacy is the essential linchpin of our entire political culture. We should see the challenge clearly in advance and take immediate action to respond.”

I couldn't agree more. I strongly second Director Coats’ call for this election commission.

Last week as well, Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and I sent a letter to Senator McConnell urging him to hold hearings on the issue of election and post-election security. Senator Schumer and I stated, "We would like to hear from the most knowledgeable people in the country as to how we can do everything possible to make sure that the election and the period afterward is secure and peaceful."

Majority Leader McConnell: Please respond to that letter. Please establish that bi-partisan committee.

And today I call on every elected official in America whether they be Republican, Democrat or Independent to vigorously oppose voter suppression and voter intimidation, to make sure that every vote is counted, and that no one is declared the winner until those votes are counted.

And to my Republican colleagues in the Congress: Please do not continue to tell the American people how much you love America if, at this critical moment, you are not prepared to stand up to defend American democracy and our way of life. Stop the hypocrisy.

With or without Donald Trump this election is unique in American history because it’s taking place during a pandemic and a public health crisis.

As a result, states all over America are taking the appropriate steps to ensure more Americans can safely vote by mail in their own homes instead of risking their health or their lives to vote in person.

The result is that this election will see, by far, the largest number of mail-in ballots ever.

And let’s be clear. Despite what Donald Trump says, voting by mail is not a new or dangerous idea. Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah conduct their elections almost entirely by mail. California, Nevada, New Jersey, the District of Columbia and my state of Vermont have pledged to mail ballots to all registered voters for the upcoming election. And many other states are making it easier to vote by mail. Trump himself, as well as members of his administration, have repeatedly voted by mail. Members of the U.S. military have regularly voted by mail since the 1800s.

Given the significant increase in mail-in ballots why, you might ask, are Trump and his allies trying to attack the integrity of our vote by mail system?

The answer is simple. A number of studies have shown that for, whatever reasons, Republicans are more likely to vote in person while Democrats are more likely to use mail-in ballots.

In fact, one poll found that only about a quarter of Biden supporters would vote in person on Election Day while some two-thirds of Trump voters planned to vote in person.

In other words, if Trump can undermine people’s confidence in the validity of votes cast by mail, he will be calling into question the validity of votes that may overwhelmingly support Joe Biden.

Let us consider the following scenario:

On election night, Trump is ahead in many battleground states based on the votes of those who voted in person on Election Day. All across the television screens people see Trump ahead before they turn in for the night. But as more and more mail-in ballots are counted, Trump’s lead falls. Trump then announces, with no proof, that there has been massive mail-in ballot fraud and that these votes should not be counted-- and that he has won the election.

In other words, Trump may well announce that he has won the election before all of the votes are counted and that large numbers of mail-in ballots should be discarded.

Furthermore, in states where Republicans control the legislature, it is possible that the election results will be ignored because of false accusations of voter fraud and that the legislature itself will use its power to appoint electors pledged to vote for Trump, overriding the will of the people.

And, in the midst of all of this, with the death of Justice Ginsburg, Trump is attempting to push through a Supreme Court Justice who may very well cast a vote in a case that will determine the outcome of this election. He is doing that at a time when early voting has already begun and millions of ballots will have already been cast.

In this unprecedented moment what can we as a people do in the struggle to preserve American democracy?

First, it is absolutely imperative that we have, by far, the largest voter turnout in American history and that people vote as early as possible.

As someone who is strongly supporting Joe Biden, let’s be clear: A landslide victory for Biden will make it virtually impossible for Trump to deny the results and is our best means for defending democracy.

Second, with the pandemic and a massive increase in mail-in voting, state legislatures must take immediate action now to allow mail-in votes to be counted before Election Day-- as they come in.

In fact, 32 states allow for the counting or processing of absentee ballots-- verifying signatures for example-- before Election Day. All states should do the same. The faster all ballots are counted, the less window there is for chaos and conspiracy theories.

Third, the news media needs to prepare the American people to understand there is no longer a single Election Day and that it is very possible that we may not know the results on November 3.

Fourth, social media companies must finally get their act together and stop people from using their tools to spread disinformation and to threaten and harass election officials.

Fifth, in the Congress and in state legislatures hearings must be held as soon as possible to explain to the public how the Election Day process and the days that follow will be handled. As we count every vote, and prevent voter intimidation everything possible must be done to prevent chaos, disinformation, and even violence.

Lastly, and most importantly, the American people, no matter what their political persuasion, must make it clear that American democracy will not be destroyed. Our country from its inception and through the sacrifices of millions has been a model to the world with regard to representative government. In 1863, in the midst of the terrible Civil War, Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg stated that this government “of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

That was true then. That is true today. Regardless of what Donald Trump wants the American people will preserve democracy in our country.

In solidarity

Bernie Sanders

It's Still Obama's Party. What Happens Next, He Owns It.

Photo: Getty Images. From an article titled: "Barack Obama Reportedly Plans To Tell The Nation To Pause If Bernie Sanders Gets Close To Securing The Democratic Nomination — The former president privately told his advisers that he would speak up against Sanders."

by Thomas Neuburger

This is still Barack Obama's Democratic Party:

     • He personally made sure Tom Perez beat Ellison to run the DNC.

     • He organized the Super Tuesday drop outs to maximize the hit on Sanders after South Carolina.

     • He talked "multiple times" with Sanders before Sanders dropped out.

Barack Obama, hero to millions, owns the Biden disaster. He's the invisible hand on the wheel at every significant turn.

About the latter point, Sanders' concession, CNN offers this:

(CNN) Former President Barack Obama played an active, albeit private, role in the Democratic presidential primary that effectively ended on Wednesday when Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders dropped out of the race.

Obama and Sanders spoke multiple times in the last few weeks as the Vermont senator determined the future of his campaign, a source familiar with the conversation tells CNN. Sanders' decision to get out on Wednesday paves the way for Joe Biden, who served as Obama's vice president for eight years, to become the Democratic nominee.

The article doesn't quite say the words "Obama played an active, albeit private, role" in "Sanders' decision to get out on Wednesday." But it sure lets you think that, given they got their information about these multiple talks from "a source familiar with the conversation" — meaning, familiar with the content of the conversations.

Whatever happens, from now through November and beyond, you can thank Barack Obama. Always the hidden hand, he gets what he wants without having to appear to want it.
 
Thanks, Barack. This one's on you.
  

What Will America Do When the Parade of Coffins Grows Long? (A Look at the Effects of Exponential Growth)

Exponential growth (red) vs. linear growth (blue). Source.

by Thomas Neuburger

“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”
—Al Bartlett (quoted here)

Exponential growth occurs when a number (interest on a loan, for example, or the death rate from a disease) grows or decays at a rate proportional to its current value instead of growing by a constant number. In exponential growth, as a number gets larger the amount by which it grows gets larger as well. So if a value doubles every day, to pick just one example, a number that starts small can become very large very quickly, in less than a month in fact.

A form of exponential growth occurs with compound interest, a situation in which the interest on a loan is added back into the principal for the next calculation of interest, so that the borrower ends up paying interest on the interest. If nothing is repaid on such a loan, the amount owed can reach astronomical proportions and the amount of the original principal is dwarfed by the accumulated owed interest.

Or consider a disease whose death rate doubles every week. If in week one if there is just one death, there will be two deaths in week two, four in week three, eight in week four, and so on. In just eight weeks, the death rate will be over 100 per week and rising. Three weeks later, the death rate will be over 1000 per week ... and still rising.

Left alone, cancer cells often increase at an exponential rate. Exponential curves tend to look like a hockey stick (see the example at the top), with a slow flat part followed by a sudden rise that seemingly never stops.

The Growth Rate of Covid-19 U.S. Cases and Deaths Is Exponential

Now consider the growth rate of confirmed Covid-19 cases and deaths in the U.S. Both are charted below. The source for each is this great thread by David Windt, which he updates daily.

Confirmed Covid-19 cases in the U.S. as of March 29, 2020

Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. as of March 29, 2020

The top chart shows confirmed Covid-19 cases in the U.S. (red dots). Notice that the vertical space between the red dots is clearly increasing. Even though the number of active cases isn't great in most neighborhoods — "hotspots" like those in New York City or the state of Washington are still the exception — the national total is growing alarmingly fast.

Unless things drastically change — unless real South Korea-style prevention is put in place, a cure is developed and made available, or a vaccine is universally deployed — the U.S. will see one million confirmed cases by April 7. That's just days away.

Now note the steepness of the curve and imagine the number of cases the U.S. will see on April 20, the last date on the chart. Hint: The next "bump" up, the next major line to cross on the smaller logarithmic chart (which makes the curve look linear), is 10,000,000 — ten million people will have gotten the disease by then. And the line after that, which will be reached on May 2, is 100,000,000, almost a third of the country.

The number of deaths, shown in the second chart, is growing at the same inexorable rate. The projection of 1,000 deaths per day by April 1 becomes 2,000 deaths per day by April 3, just two days later.

If this continues, today's total of 2,000 U.S. deaths will become 10,000 U.S. deaths by April 3, at which point the blue line exits the top of the chart. Based on the logarithmic graph inserted into the chart, the projected total U.S. deaths will reach 100,000 on April 13, just ten days later.

As one Twitter user put it on March 28, "The first US death from the coronavirus was February 29. The 1000th death was Thursday. The 2000th death was today [Saturday]." This is the power of exponential growth.

It Doesn't Have to Be This Way

None of this growth is predicted; it's merely projected based on what's gone before. Yet there's no question the pandemic is spreading exponentially in the U.S.

We could do much to mitigate this growth. We could imitate the South Koreans, for example, and institute a very strict regimen of testing + social distancing. One of our researchers could find a cure — there's some promising news on this front (along with some disturbing neoliberal attempts, since rescinded under public pressure, to profit from it). And at some point a vaccine will be developed.

But in the absence of effective policies and leadership — and the U.S. is experiencing a great lack of leadership with no end of that lack in sight — this disease could well spread unchecked for at least the near future.

Exponential Growth of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths Will Upend the U.S. Election

So, what does the near future look like? For now most Americans are hunkering down to wait it out. Except for those living in hotspots, most of us don't see cases and most don't see new deaths. Put simply, from a medical standpoint this pandemic, for most of us, is more about the news and the warnings and less about living with the visibly sick and dying.

That's not true economically, however, where effects are felt nationally and now. Here's the chart of new unemployment claims for the week ending March 21:

The spike in new claims dwarfs by an order of magnitude every spike in new claims since the late 1960s. In addition, for many workers lose of employment also means loss of employer-supplied health care — during a pandemic.

The near future holds no good news. Not only will unemployment continue to spike upward — reaching as high as 30% by some estimates — but the disease itself will come to every neighborhood, disrupting most lives in a way unfelt today.

If the exponential projections hold and one-third of the country has contracted Covid-19 by early May, if we've seen 100,000 deaths or more by mid-April evictions continue to rise and loan defaults skyrocket (another exponential curve), the nation will panic and search in desperation for a leader who can actually "save" it.

Will Donald Trump fill that need? It's possible, but it's also possible he'll be swept up in the blame, as more and more of his missteps are laid at his feet. Will the evicted hold him blameless if he doesn't protect him now, on the day they land on the street with all their belongings? Will the bankrupt put on their MAGA hats if he doesn't make them whole instead of enriching the swamp creatures, bankers and CEOs he actually serves?

Will Joe Biden and the neoliberal Democratic Party survive unscathed if the nation is drowning in debt and disease and they offer just crumbs when long-term money, meals and shelter are needed instead?

The person who gives a drowning man a rope is a savior. The one who withholds it ... isn't. The ranks of the nation's leaders are stuffed with people who really want to withhold that rope. These leaders live by constraining the wealth of the people and giving what's saved to themselves. They make their living from it, they tell tales to their friends about how they got away with another one, they encourage each other to keep the cruel project on track.

They haven't changed either their stripes or their tune. The latest bailout package is "a robbery in progress" as one analyst put it, and people for whom a single $1200 (means-tested) check will not be nearly enough, will notice and care.

As more and more voters begin to drown, go down for the third and last time, or watch as their friends and family falter and die ... as they witness the parade of coffins, born on the shoulders of the poor, grow longer each day ... the rebellion against the entire leadership class will grow as well, perhaps even exponentially.

At that point, it's a whole new ball game. Who will come out the winner? That's impossible to predict at this point — though Bernie Sanders may find that a lot more "back to normal" moms are seeing the value of political revolution after all.

Needless to say though, more than one outcome is possible, including the one with tanks. Stay tuned. We may know what's coming next in just a few weeks.
  

A Low-Cost Ventilator Could Be Available Next Year. But Will It?

Click to enlarge (source)

by Thomas Neuburger

There's quite a lot to write about coronavirus, all of it of the PSA variety. There's the coming need for hospital beds ("These Places Could Run Out of Hospital Beds as Coronavirus Spreads"), the need for parts for ventilators ("Volunteers 3D-Print Unobtainable $11,000 Valve For $1 To Keep Covid-19 Patients Alive; Original Manufacturer Threatens To Sue"), the need to understand the new working-from-home environment ("Working From Home? Zoom Tells Your Boss If You're Not Paying Attention"), and so on.

But let's start with ventilators.

Coronavirus-19 is a respiratory disease, "an infectious disease caused by the virus strain severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)." It is not the flu. It attacks the lungs, and those whose respiratory or immune systems are weak are particularly vulnerable to severe infections, which often result in death.

Key to keeping the death toll down for those with virulent infections is the availability of mechanical ventilators, machines that help people breathe when their lungs can't breathe on their own. After recovery from the COVID infection, normal breathing capability is restored and the ventilator is removed. Access to ventilators is critical to saving lives in a crisis like this, more important even than hospital beds, since ventilators can be used almost anywhere — in a triage setting, for example.

Of special importance are portable, low-cost ventilators. (Note the picture at the top, showing a ventilator in a hospital setting — not very portable, not very cheap.)

Fortunately, such a low-cost device exists, or will soon:

We need more ventilators. Here’s what it will take to get them. 

As a Stanford postdoc a decade ago, Matt Callaghan created the designs for a streamlined, low-cost ventilator that hospitals could stockpile, to prepare for the possibility of a global pandemic.

But when he went to cofound a company, One Breath, he and colleagues determined the immediate need was producing cheaper ventilators for critical care in the developing world, where chronic respiratory illnesses are among the leading causes of death.

The company raised several million dollars, set up manufacturing in Southeast Asia and finally expected to begin production for its initial markets within the next 12 months.

Here's what the new ventilator will look like; compare that to the ventilator pictured at the top.

A rendering of One Breath's ventilator

The obstacles to retooling this device for first-world use are many, as you might imagine. "To begin manufacturing devices suited for an escalating pandemic – which entail different standards, features and batteries ­– Callaghan says they would need to raise additional funds, lock-in contracts and secure fast-track regulatory approvals, including from the US Food and Drug Administration" — and that just lists a few of the roadblocks.

Chief among them, of course, is money, which brings us to the "free market":

Adding factory capacity also costs a lot of upfront money, creating real risks for these businesses, since it’s possible hospitals won’t need as many ventilators as the worst-case scenarios suggest.

“Who will pay for all the extra ventilators even if the company can ramp up?” said Kenneth Lutchen, dean of the Boston University’s College of Engineering and a professor of biomedical engineering, who is focused on developing safer mechanical ventilators, in an email. “Presumably at some point this crisis will play itself out and the hospitals will have far more ventilators than they need until the next crises.”

“There needs to be an incentivized business model to hit the go button for ramping up manufacturing and government likely needs to figure out how to successfully engage,” he added.

Who will pay indeed? "An incentivized business model" is one answer. I mean, why would hospitals pay for ventilators they need now, but won't need later, without being incentivized? It's only lives after all, and their investors need to eat too.

The other answer is the Sanders solution: It's an emergency; government steps in and does the job only government can do. Government funds the ventilator company and mandates the ventilators be purchased by hospitals and made available. After all, during World War II the investment community didn't decide how many jeeps GM would produce — GM was told what to produce and complied.

This is as true today as it was a month ago: There is no neoliberal solution to this problem. Barring a miracle cure, we'll solve it the Sanders way or we won't solve it at all.
   

Comcast Executives Give Big to Biden

(Click to enlarge)

by Thomas Neuburger

It's easy to make the obvious connection between MSNBC's owner Comcast and the deplorable (yes, that word again) behavior of its hosts and invited guests. It beggars thought not to make it.

Still, details — tangible connections — are sometimes lacking. Yes, there was the financing of the 2016 Democratic Convention in Philadelphia. But what about this cycle?

Here to help inform us is Sludge (yes, a real name and a good site):

MSNBC’s Owners Shower Biden With Campaign Cash

94% of Comcast executives’ and vice presidents’ contributions to Democratic presidential candidates have gone to Joe Biden, a Sludge review of FEC records finds.

The most influential cable news channel among liberals, MSNBC, has a habit of taking cheap shots against one of the leading Democratic presidential contenders.

According to prime time host Chris Matthews, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) is not the type of person who would help you if you were lying on the side of the road injured. A self-proclaimed body language expert who was a guest of weekend host Joy Reid speculated that Sanders lied during the most recent debate because of the 78-year-old candidate’s slouched posture. “He turtles,” the guest said. “His eye level is below his shoulders. This is trying to hide in plain sight.”

The prime-time hosts have done much worse since this piece was written in January. But can we draw a line between the behavior of MSNBC and the behavior of its owner?

Yes, we can:

A Sludge review of Federal Election Commission records shows Biden is the preferred candidate of the station’s owners, the behemoth Comcast Corporation.

Biden has received 17 large campaign contributions from executives and vice presidents at Comcast, including eight for the legal maximum of $2,800. Of all the other candidates still in the race, only South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg has received any Comcast executive contributions—Buttigieg received a single contribution from Comcast Managing Director Amy Banse.

In addition, Comcast’s top lobbyist, David Cohen, co-hosted Biden’s kick-off fundraiser in April and he is listed as a bundler for the campaign, meaning that he has collected at least $25,000 in contributions from others for Biden.

The chart at the top shows the full list of Comcast's executives' financial support of Biden's campaign as of the date of publication, excluding super PAC and dark money support, of course.

The reason for this all-for-Biden teamwork should also be obvious. Aside from the usual corporate animus (actually hatred) for Sanders and his policies, there's an issue dear to Comcast's cold corporate heart that Biden is particularly good on and Sanders is particularly bad on — net neutrality. Read the rest of the Sludge piece for the details.

All in all, Comcast love is a sweet deal for Biden and his campaign. He may have his own network again. All he needs now to do is look viable after the next few races and he's back in business.
 

The Candidate's Dilemma: "I call on my opponents to stop calling on me to drop out."

If you put all of the crowds that flock to watch Warren, Buttigieg, Bloomberg and Biden into this arena, would they fill even half of it?

by Thomas Neuburger

The "Prisoner's Dilemma" is a game often analyzed in game theory. In its simplest form, it looks like this:

Two prisoners are accused of a crime. If one confesses and the other does not, the one who confesses will be released immediately and the other will spend 20 years in prison. If neither confesses, each will be held only a few months. If both confess, they will each be jailed 15 years. They cannot communicate with one another.

So what's a prisoner (player) to do? Self-interest suggests each player will race to confess in order to win the Get Out Of Jail Free card. Yet doing that guarantees both will lose, and a long jail sentence for each. The only way for both to win is for each to stay silent and trust that the other do the same. The problem for both? They have no way to coordinate their responses.

The current Democratic candidates for president may be playing a variation of that game — or not, depending on whether you think Bernie Sanders could today beat each of them in a head-to-head contest.

But if you do buy into the argument that Sanders would lose to most of them if he faced only one of them, the problem can be stated like this:

Bernie Sanders has only 30% of the vote. Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar each have 18%, 14%, 10% and 5% respectively, for a combined total of 47%. If Biden, or Bloomberg, or Buttigieg, or Klobuchar were running alone against Sanders, Sanders would lose since the anti-progressive forces would coalesce. But none of them can win because all of them are running. [Data snapshot here.]

If this correctly analyses the state of the "game," what's a player to do?

Obviously, all but one of the players must drop out. But which one should stay in? That's the Candidate's Dilemma. They all want to be the one who stays in.

The Candidate's Dilemma: Why Won't the Rest of You Let Me Win?

Alexandra Petri has caught this dilemma perfectly in a satirical piece for the Washington Post. Petri imagines herself a candidate (she could be one, after all; the field contains at least one person who has yet to campaign and has amassed no delegates).

Thus "Candidate Petri" writes:

We must stop Bernie Sanders, and I see no path forward but for my opponents to drop out

...Now is the time to act! It is imperative that we concentrate our efforts to stop Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and that is why I see no path forward for my campaign but for my opponents to drop out of the race.

I am calling on all of my moderate, semi-moderate and wealthy opponents to gracefully exit the nomination contest. They are wrong when they say, ”I am the only one who has a chance against him and everyone else needs to drop out.” I am the only one who has a chance against him, and everyone else needs to drop out. ...

I call on them to stop calling on me to drop out on the grounds that I lack some combination of popular support, a staff, pledged delegates, cash on hand or a path forward. In fact, I am the only one with a path, assuming that several of them drop out, in which case I will be the clear front-runner to stop Sanders. The only reason I have not yet demonstrated my ability to beat him is because everyone else is still here.

I don’t know what they think their paths are! I guess they assume I will drop out, and they will get my support, which will never happen! No, never, not while there is breath in my body or dollar in my bank account.

On Petri's part, this is satire. On the part of non-Sanders Democratic candidates, this is wishful thinking.

Stacking Smaller Players Doesn't Create a Large One

There probably was a time, back when Biden seemed lucid even when he wasn't, back before the first votes were cast in the first state to cast them, when Sanders might not have placed first in a narrower field. Would Sanders have gained the momentum he now has if, before Christmas, he had only Biden to face, or any of them?

Maybe not. But today Sanders is soaring, while Biden is fading fast, Buttigieg is more and more seen as an empty suit, and Warren, Buttigieg and Klobuchar all are leaking  or lacking support in minority communities. Each has been reduced to electoral midgets by the last three contests.

Yes, you could stack the midgets one on the other today and dress the result like a single taller candidate, one face representing the rest, but each face alone would not made more pleasing by the sudden disappearance of the rest. Would all of Biden's black support move to Warren or Bloomberg if Biden were gone? Some would certainly go to Sanders. Would all of Buttigieg's wine-track support move to Warren or Klobuchar? Some would surely go to Sanders or stay just home.

No one has the stature and appeal that Sanders does today. No one looks like a "winner" like Sanders does today, and winning begets winning.

The Time to Pick Just One Opponent Was Yesterday

The Prisoner's Dilemma analogy fits today's situation only in the past. The time for these candidates to unite behind just one of them was yesterday, a day they will never have back, a day when each was flush with ambitious and hope. Which of them would play the "all for one" card then and sacrifice the dream while hope still burned in them?

On a day like today, when none of them has hope, their ambitions crushed like grapes, their campaigns running (all but one) on the fumes of donors past, not one of them standing alone has a chance to win without massive outside intervention.

Yesterday is the wrong day to make a smart decision now. The Prisoner's Dilemma moment has passed. The game they're each now playing is "Daddy please save me."
  

Is Bloomberg Buying the DNC? If So, What Does He Plan to Do With It?

Paradise lost. One misstep is all it takes to take the proud down low.

by Thomas Neuburger

Whom the gods would destroy, they first make proud.
—With apologies to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

This is a small point that leads to a larger one. Consider what Mike Bloomberg is building within the Democratic Party, within the DNC. According to the following analysis he's turning the DNC into an anti-Sanders machine, a force loyal to himself, that will operate even after Sanders is nominated, even after Sanders is elected, if he so chooses.

With that he hopes to limit and control what Sanders and his rebellion can do. It's the ultimate billionaire counter-rebellion — own the Party machine that the president normally controls, then use it against him.

Our source for this thought is Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report. Ford is one of the more vitriolic defenders of radical change in America, but in this analysis I don't think he's wrong, at least in making the case that Bloomberg is giving himself that option. But do decide for yourself.

Here's his case:

Bloomberg Wants to Swallow the Democrats and Spit Out the Sandernistas

If, somehow, Bernie Sanders is allowed to win the nomination, Michael Bloomberg and other plutocrats will have created a Democratic Party machinery purpose-built to defy Sanders -- as nominee, and even as president.

The details of his argument are here (emphasis added):

Bloomberg has already laid the groundwork to directly seize the party machinery, the old fashioned way: by buying it and stacking it with his own, paid operatives, with a war-against-the-left budget far bigger than the existing Democratic operation. Bloomberg’s participation in Wednesday’s debate, against all the rules, is proof-of-purchase.

In addition to the nearly million dollar down payment to the party in November that sealed the deal for the debate rules change, Bloomberg has already pledged to pay the full salaries of 500 political staffers for the Democratic National Committee all the way through the November election, no matter who wins the nomination. Essentially, Bloomberg will be running the election for the corporate wing of the party, even if Sanders is the nominee.

In an interview with PBS’s Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday night, senior Bloomberg advisor Timothy O’Brien made it clear that the DNC is in no condition to refuse being devoured by Bloomberg, even if they wanted to. O’brien predicted the Republicans will spend at least $900 million on the election, while the DNC has only about $8 million on hand. Even the oligarch’s underlings are telegraphing the takeover game plan.

Bloomberg is not so much running for president as making sure that the Democrats don’t go “rogue” anti-corporate to accommodate the Sandernistas. He is ensuring that the Democratic Party will be an even more hostile environment for anti-austerity politics than in the past – not in spite of the phenomenal success of the Sanders project, but because of it.

Ford has not much love for Bernie Sanders, as he finds Sanders (and his supporters) weak for sticking with the Democrats. Ford thinks Sanders should go "third party" in his opposition to the corrupt duopoly that owns our politics. That's a point on which we can disagree without disagreeing that the duopoly is indeed corrupt, or that Bloomberg is setting himself up for post-electoral mischief.

Ford also thinks the Party will split in the face of this anti-Sanders resistance, especially if the counter-resistance continues after a President Sanders is inaugurated.

We'll see about all that. Ford may be right in his estimate of Bloomberg's intentions. He may also be right in Bloomberg's ability to carry through if his intentions are indeed as Machiavellian as he says.

On the other hand, Sanders may gather to himself enough control of the DNC and other Party machinery that he does indeed transform it, and with it, slowly, the Party itself. That's certainly been his game plan, and if he does indeed have a movement behind him — a really big one — I wouldn't bet against him being right. I myself don't see a way for a third party to succeed in the U.S. unless it's a "virtual third party" — but more on that at another time.

The Larger Point

So this is our smaller point, that Mike Bloomberg may be positioning himself to "own" the DNC, and with it enough of the Democratic Party, so that he can himself rein in a President Sanders. Is that his goal? It certainly seems possible. "Mini-Mike" is certainly Machiavellian.

Which leads to the larger point: How much rebellion, within the DNC and elsewhere, with or without Bloomberg's interference, will someone like President Sanders encounter and how long will it last? If it lasts throughout his presidency, that's a horse of a different color — a much darker one.

In fact, the dark horse of today's American politics is the entrenched, corrupt (and frankly, pathological) über-rich and their death grip on all of our governing institutions, including the press. Will that death grip tighten as the Sanders movement grows? And will they continue to squeeze the throats of the working class, even as the victims find their own throats and tighten in response?

Would you bet, in other words, that the rich who rule us wouldn't kill the country that feeds their wealth — wouldn't spark such a confused and violent rebellion that even they would be forced at last to flee — won't do all all this out of animus, pique and world-historical hubris?

That bet is even money all the way. They just might try it, just might be willing to strangle the body itself, the political body, just to see how far it they can get by doing it.

Whom the gods would destroy...
 

On February 6 Antarctica Was Warmer Than Orlando, or Why I Support Only Sanders

Location of Esperanza Station on the northern tip of Antarctica

by Thomas Neuburger

The climate news out of Antarctica isn't good. As Vice News put it on February 7, "Good Morning. It's 65 Degrees in Antarctica. That's warmer than Orlando today."

Since then the news from the South Pole has gotten worse. From the World Meteorological Association on February 14 (emphasis added):

The Argentine research base, Esperanza, on the northern tip of the Antarctic peninsula, set a new record temperature of 18.3°C on 6 February, beating the former record of 17.5°C on 24 March 2015, according to Argentina’s national meteorological service (SMN).

A committee for WMO’s Weather and Climate Extremes Archive will now verify whether this indeed is a new record for the Antarctic continent, which is defined as the main continental landmass.

“Everything we have seen thus far indicates a likely legitimate record but we will of course begin a formal evaluation of the record once we have full data from SMN and on the meteorological conditions surrounding the event. The record appears to be likely associated (in the short term) with what we call a regional "foehn" event over the area:  a rapid warming of air coming down a slope/mountain,” according to WMO’s Weather and Climate Extremes rapporteur, Randall Cerveny. ...

WMO is seeking to obtain the actual temperature data for a montitoring station on Seymour Island, part of a chain of islands off the Antarctic peninsula. Media reports say that researchers logged a temperature of 20.75°C. Mr Cerveny cautioned that it is premature to say that Antarctica has exceeded 20°C for the first time.

Twenty degrees Celsius (68°F) is a marker for obvious reasons, an even number that's never before been crossed. It's been crossed now. You could wear shorts and a T-shirt on a 68° day, even on Seymour Island.

Building Rome in a Day

A personal note: As part of my "day job" I interact in many venues with people at the most progressive end of the Democratic Party infrastructure, and I keep being told by some of the smartest in these groups that we need to be practical (in the real sense, not the fake "I want to slow you down" sense) in our attempt to enact policies like Medicare For All and the Green New Deal. I keep being told that you can't build Rome in a day.

And those who say that are right in a sense; these things do take time. The Republican Party didn't destroy a third of the electorate and more than half of the federal government in one or two cycles — it took decades of evil, dedicated work and endless seduction of eager neoliberal Democrats to create the mess we're in now.

And yet, at the rate things are advancing — not just on the climate front but on the "rebellion against the pathological rich" front — we just don't have a decade to work with. The climate news says that. The election of Trump says that. We may not even have five years.

Which leads me to argue back: Look, even if we elect a better-than-Trump, half-measures candidate, we're still not better off. Our grandchildren will curse us all the same.

I don't think that sinks in, even to some of the better minds among them. Perhaps seeing a building that's about to fall, but hasn't, isn't enough. Perhaps the building has to start its descent before most in position to act will take the urgency of the crisis seriously. After all, the bricks haven't fallen on their grandchildren's bodies yet.

But they soon will, all too soon for all too many. It's not enough to act. We need to act in time enough to matter. I guess that's why I support Sanders and no one else, the only one who will even try to build Rome in a day.

A slow-handed, good-hearted captain of the Titanic is still a disaster just about to happen — a person blind to what hovers in the mist, a person who cannot feel its approaching breath.
  

Pre-Caucus Thoughts: The Iowa Outcome and Delegate Math

 (source)

by Thomas Neuburger

The Iowa caucuses are today, and the results will be known either tonight or tomorrow. Iowa has 41 pledged delegates available (along with eight superdelegates, who won't vote at the convention until after the first round).

So let's take a quick look ahead. As Bobby Fisher reminded us in Bobby Fisher Teaches Chess, the goal of the game is to checkmate. Anything that gets you there faster is a plus. Anything that slows the process — like oh-so-clever pins and forks — isn't.

It's the same here. The goal is to acquire 1990 delegates to the Democratic National Convention and win on the first round. The faster you get to that point, the better. Anything that slows you down is worse.

So here's the state of play, using projections and delegate math, in two states — Iowa and California.

Iowa Projections and Delegate Math

Predictions for Iowa vary widely, from it being a virtual Sanders-Biden tie to Sanders winning by a wide margin. (For some background on delegate allocation in Iowa and elsewhere, see "How Iowa Chooses National Convention Delegate and What That Means For Us.")

It's true that as of this writing Sanders leads, Biden trails but is viable, and both Buttigieg and Warren hover just at the statewide viability point:

At the top of this piece are what one person claims are the results from the now never-to-be-published Des Moines Register poll, one of the most widely respected polls in Iowa. So for the sake of  discussion, let's take those polling numbers as our starting point and assume this is the actual outcome:

• Sanders: 33%
• Biden: 15%
• Buttigieg: 12%
• Klobuchar: 13%
• Warren: 11%
• Yang: 7%
• Steyer: 1%
• Gabbard: 3%
• Bloomberg: 0%

Notice that, despite the mass of votes garnered by the bottom seven candidates — 52% of all votes tallied — only the top two, Sanders and Biden, are viable in this distribution ("viable" means a candidate got at least 15% of the vote). This in turn means that, in the pure case, only Sanders and Biden are awarded delegates.

If only Sanders and Biden are viable, the pure delegate split, even if they get only 48% of the vote between them, is this. (Some candidates who are unviable statewide may get a delegate or two in districts where they are stronger, but we'll ignore those small differences for now.)

• Sanders: 28 dels. (69% of available)
• Biden: 13 dels. (31% of available)

But if you include Warren as viable (at 15%) and leave Sanders' and Biden's totals as they are, the delegate split changes dramatically:

• Sanders: 21 dels. (52% of available)
• Biden: 10 dels. (24% of available)
• Warren: 10 dels. (24% of available)

These differences between a two-person race and a three-person race are entirely independent of whose vote goes to whom on the second ballot after supporters of unviable candidates realign themselves to candidates who are viable. It's just the math — if two candidates, with 48% of the vote between them, split all delegates, each gets more delegates than if three candidates, with 63% of the vote between them, split the same number of delegates.

I've seen projections that have Sanders winning as much as 36% on the first ballot in Iowa and 40% on the second ballot. That second scenario was modeled by Doug Hatlem here:

• Sanders
  1st ballot: 25.6%
  2nd ballot: 40.4% 
  Delegates: 17

• Biden
  1st ballot: 20.7%
  2nd ballot: 32.7%
  Delegates: 14

• Warren
  1st ballot: 17.0% 
  2nd ballot: 26.9%
  Delegates: 10

• Buttigieg
  1st ballot: 12.6% (unviable)

• Klobuchar
  1st ballot: 8.7% (unviable)

Notice the delegate split. Even with Sanders winning over 40% of the votes on the final ballot, his delegate total — and his separation from Biden, the runner-up — is much smaller than it would be in a two-person race with the same percentage outcomes. (I doubt, by the way, that Biden will get 33% of the Iowa vote on the second ballot. I think the leaked DMR numbers, whatever their source, are closer to the mark.)

So the real number to watch as you watch the contest is Warren's number — Will she be viable statewide or not?

California Projections and Delegate Math

Now let's do the same exercise with California, which votes on Super Tuesday, immediately after the four early states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — weigh in. California offers a whopping 415 pledged delegates to be divided up among the candidates, with Sanders as the front-runner as of this writing.

For the sake of this discussion, let's say the voting split is the same shown in the recent KQED/NPR poll (I've highlighted the winners totals below):

• Sanders: 33%
• Warren: 16%
• Biden: 15%

In this poll, the rest of the field is below 10% and thus unviable. At this voting split, the pure delegate allocation is:

• Sanders: 204
• Warren: 109
• Biden: 102

But let just one of the lower two, Biden or Warren, become unviable — turning the contest into a two-person race — and the split changes to this:

• Sanders: 271
• Warren or Biden: 144

That is, Sanders, or whoever else leads with 33% of the vote, goes from 49% of delegates available in a three-person race, to 65% of delegates available in a two-person race — with no change in his actual vote totals. 

The conclusion is obvious. The drama around who's viable and who's not — or who has dropped out to support someone else — is almost more important for the winner of a given primary or caucus than his or her actual vote totals. Keep that in mind as you watch the Iowa results come in.
  

Thoughts on Warren, Sanders and the Convention: The Choices Facing Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren talking at SXSW about the now-famous private conversation with Bernie Sanders

by Thomas Neuburger

Much has been written about the Warren-Sanders-CNN confrontation at the most recent debate, both the conflict at the debate itself and hot-mic conversation afterward (excellent contextual rundown here).

For the record, here's what was said at the debate:

CNN Moderator: Let’s now turn to an issue that’s come up in the last 48 hours, Senator Sanders. Seen and reported yesterday that … Senator Sanders, Senator Warren confirmed in a statement that in 2018, you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?

Sanders: Well, as a matter of fact, I didn’t say it, and I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want. [...]

CNN Moderator: Senator Sanders, I do want to be clear here. You’re saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election?

Sanders: That is correct.

CNN Moderator: Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?

[Audience reaction; gasping and laughter at the question.]

Warren: I disagreed. [...]

Note that the disagreement is stark. Though both candidates backed away from further accusations, their positions remain as stated above.

Next, here's what was said after the debate while the mics were still live. Sanders moved to Warren and held out his hand for a handshake, which Warren refused to take. She then said the following:

Warren: I think you called me a liar on national TV.

Sanders: What?

Warren: I think you called me a liar on national TV.

Sanders: You know, let’s not do it right now. If you want to have that discussion, we’ll have that discussion.

Warren: Anytime.

Sanders: You called me a liar. You told me — all right, let’s not do it now.”

The dialog didn't appear angry, though it was clearly tense.

This disagreement could have resulted from a misunderstanding of what was said at the meeting, but the accusation and the denial are too clear-cut, not nuanced enough, to allow for that interpretation. As we have it from the participants, only one of them can be right.

Why Is This Coming Out Now?

Several explanations have been offered as to why this story is emerging now. One is that Warren's side of the "he's a sexist" story was leaked strategically by Warren or her staffers, many of whom are Clinton and Obama alumni. Another is that one of the reporters to whom Warren herself told the story "off the record" spoke to CNN or spoke to people who spoke to CNN. Or it could be a combination of the two.

About the latter possibility, Ryan Grim writes, "Additional news in the story: A year ago, Warren told a group of journalists at an off-record dinner about her conversation with Sanders about whether a woman could win in 2020. That appears to be how the news got into the bloodstream."

Additional news in the story: A year ago, Warren told a group of journalists at an off-record dinner about her conversation with Sanders about whether a woman could win in 2020. That appears to be how the news got into the bloodstream. pic.twitter.com/z75iz5NjNj

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) January 18, 2020

Grim says neither he nor any of his colleagues at The Intercept was at the dinner.

It's also been rumored that CNN had the story for a while, ready to go, and that they were just waiting on confirmation from someone closer to Warren — or waiting for a strategic moment, for example the week before their own hosted debate — to let it drop. None of the latter speculation, however, has been confirmed.

In any case, the story is out there, the fires have been lit, and we are where we are.

What Happens Now?

Both campaigns are backing away from greater public conflict. Whether that holds true in the long run is anyone's guess, but my guess is that it will. Still, the following is clear:

• Warren has been damaged, perhaps permanently, in the eyes of many Sanders supporters who have considered her a good, and perhaps equivalent, second choice. Her favorability has gone way down in their eyes and may never recover.

• Warren's charge of sexism has inflamed the existing anger of many Democratic and liberal-leaning women and relit the wildfire that coursed through the Sanders-Clinton primary and beyond.

• Rightly or wrongly, Warren's polling numbers among voters have fallen, while Sanders' support has held steady or improved. It's yet to be seen if the incident alters long-term fund-raising for either candidate, but it might. For his part, Sanders has seen a post-debate surge in funding.

So far, in other words, most of the damage has been borne by Warren. She may still recover, but this could also end her candidacy by accelerating a decline that started with public reaction to her recent stand on Medicare For All. This could change in the future, but these are the trends today.

What Happens Later?

This whole national exercise has a much greater purpose, to put a progressive in the White House in 2021 — not just a Democrat, a real progressive. Doing that requires securing the nomination on behalf of progressive voters at the 2020 convention.

To do that, one of the following events must occur:

• One of the candidates who appeal to progressives — Warren and Sanders both make this claim — must win the nomination on the first ballot by winning a clear majority, 51%, of pledged delegates beforehand, OR

• Warren and Sanders must find a way to combine their delegates and their supporters prior to the convention to achieve a majority for one of them on the second round of voting. 

If Warren and Sanders both enter the convention with healthy delegate totals — as long as both are gaining supporters and not at the other's expense — the contest can and should continue, for now at least, as it has. And if they enter the convention with, say, 60% of the pledged delegates between them, the case for nominating a candidate who appeals to progressive voters is strong.

But if Warren's candidacy becomes unviable, as it seems it might — and if the goal of both camps really is to defeat Joe Biden — it's incumbent on Warren to drop out and endorse her "friend and ally" Bernie Sanders as soon as it's clear she can no longer win. (The same is true if Sanders becomes unviable, though that seems much less likely.) The longer she delays after that point, the more she hurts the progressive cause.

Ms. Warren can do whatever she wants, certainly. But if she does anything less than help elect the last and only progressive with a chance, she damages them both to Biden's benefit, and frankly, helps nominate Biden. She has the right to do that, but not to claim at the same time that she's working to further the progressive movement.

We'll know about the consequences of this conflict soon enough. Perhaps she'll rise again, or at least triage her decline.

But if she doesn't, if she falls to the bottom of the top tier or into the second and stays there, her endorsement — or non-endorsement — of Sanders will be watched and noticed, closely and widely, and she will be defined, probably permanently, by her response.   
 

The End of the Middle of the Democratic Primary — It Looks Like a Two-Person Race

Brutal for Tier 2: "Sanders supporters are the most set: 71% saying they will definitely vote for him...57% of Biden voters definitely will vote for Biden...29% of Buttigieg and 28% of Warren voters indicated they plan to stick with their candidate."https://t.co/LZD7tvzZGC

— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) December 18, 2019

by Thomas Neuburger

As we approach the end of the middle of the current primary season — and the end of the pre-primary year — the Democratic candidates for president seem to have separated themselves once more.

Note the graph in Zaid Jilani's tweet above: Warren has begun a descent into tier 2, leaving Biden and Sanders the front-runners as of this date.

If the trend continues, the race will resolve itself into its two polar opposites, Biden and Sanders, one representing the status quo ante (a full-throated return to the old neoliberal normal), the other representing the greatest possible change in the least possible time.

Not only that, but those two have the most committed supporters — 71% of Sanders supporters will stick with Sanders regardless, while 57% of Biden supporters will stay with Biden. (Note, by the way, the softness of Biden's support relative to Sanders' support.) In contrast, only 28% of Warren supporters will stick with her, and Buttigieg's "committed core" number is similar to Warren's.

This means that if Sanders fades, he'd lose less than 30% of his support, while a Warren fade fade could cost her as much as 70% of hers. The plot thickens — or in this case, thins.

That polling and its implications are the subject of the first part of this recent panel discussion on Rising:

Note Saagar's early point (at 1:30) about future debates. They may not matter much for Biden and Sanders as the Iowa caucus approaches. Biden and Sanders are not going to poach each others voters to any significant degree (at least not until something catastrophic happens to one of them), so they need only wait for the lesser tier candidates to fade, allowing their lost supporters to sort themselves according to neoliberal or anti-neoliberal preferences.

If that's the case, why should either go on the attack? Biden and Sanders can simply make their respective cases, defend their policies as needed and requested and watch the rest of the field scramble to poach each other's fallen-aways.

As to the rest of the field, the stakes are pretty high, so their advisors may argue raising the heat a bit. Can a second-tier Buttigieg survive in a field with a thriving second-tier Warren (if indeed that's where she lands)?

Unlikely, and it's unlikely his advisors, McKinsey-clone strategists and warriors, will not recommend he seize the opportunity to attack her, then gather to himself as many of her fallen-aways as he can. He'll certainly get more votes from her former supporters than he'll get from Biden or Sanders supporters at this point.

In the same way, unless she changes her tactics drastically, Warren is unlikely to go after Sanders (just as he seems unlikely at this point to go hard on her); and though her quarrel with Biden and his policies make him her natural enemy, her team may be swayed by the same logic as Buttigieg's — to reach tier 1, she needs to get supporters from somewhere, and Mayor Pete has the biggest supply of those who may be amenable to Warren's pitch and appeal.

In addition, Buttigieg, regardless of how he fares in the first three contests, will die in South Carolina if he gets that far, making his pool of supporters an even more tempting target, an orchard of low-hanging apples and oranges. (He knows this, I'm sure, just as I'm sure he's actually running for VP at this point.)

If all of the above is true, the next big question is the effect of the 15% threshold rule on the early primary contests. Recall that any candidate who doesn't break 15% can't be awarded delegates, though each state's delegate mix includes precinct-wide or county-wide pools as well as state-at-large pools. (For more on this aspect of the Democratic Party methodology, see "An Early Look at the Byzantine Rules for Delegate Allocation in the Democratic Primary.")

Stay tuned. We may be entering — at last — the final phase of the 2020 primary election, the phase where the candidate pool is small, the differences are clear, and the candidate's policy stances don't spread and merge into each other like variously colored inks in a slowly swirling pool of water.
 

Wheels Within Wheels: Did Deval Patrick Enter the NH Primary to Damage Elizabeth Warren?

by Thomas Neuburger

Wheels within wheels. One of the more cogent speculations around Deval Patrick's "entry" into the Democratic primary (actually, just the New Hampshire race) involves his close relationship with what Alex Parene calls "Obama World," the circle of people around Barack and Michelle Obama, like Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod and others like them.

Why did Deval Patrick, former governor of Massachusetts, re-enter the primary race after having already dropped out? Why did he enter the New Hampshire race but no other? Why did he think he could divest himself of the tar that damaged his late-2018 entry? It is a puzzlement.

Or maybe not. The following explanation, from Alex Parene, depends on two ideas. First, that people in the Clinton circle hate Bernie Sanders with a passion that passes reason (no surprise there), and second, that people in the Obama circle hate Elizabeth Warren with the same intensity (for why, see "'Why Are You Pissing In Our Face?': Inside Warren’s War With the Obama Team").

This puts these two teams in a conundrum when it comes to the 2020 primary, since the one viable candidate each camp relies on to defeat both Warren and Sanders — Joe Biden — looks increasing less viable. Biden could still win (I'll have more on that in a separate piece), but clearly a backup plan is needed by each camp, and each camp needs a different backup plan.

Team Clinton could adopt Elizabeth Warren as their "Stop Sanders" savior, though they haven't yet. But the "Stop Warren" Obama people would never adopt Bernie Sanders. What's left to do? Answer: Force Warren out of the race by (hopefully) fatally damaging her in New Hampshire, an early-primary state in her own back yard.

Alex Parene:

There’s Only One Way the Patrick and Bloomberg Campaigns Make Sense

Democratic Party elders are making plans.

...what should Obama World do if it sees Harris (or Cory Booker, or Julián Castro, both of whom are viewed with favor by this camp) struggling to gain traction? Many of this cohort seem to like Mayor Pete Buttigieg and would find his nomination acceptable. Nevertheless, they surely originally envisioned him as, perhaps, a future Senate candidate, or a running mate at best. It can’t be lost on them that the primary calendar after New Hampshire and Iowa becomes rough sledding for a candidate whose entire base of support is white. Still, they can’t back Warren; Sanders is an unserious option; Biden has perhaps lost it.

So: Enter Deval Patrick. But not to actually win the nomination in the primary process. ...

Patrick cannot possibly expect to enter the race at this late hour and run a normal presidential candidacy designed to accrue a majority of delegates ahead of the convention. (Who is he even hiring to run his campaign? There are a dozen active campaigns already being run by campaign professionals!) He won’t qualify for the debates. He has low national name recognition, hasn’t been fundraising, and his history in the private sector is radioactive. No one in decades has entered the race this late and won any primaries or caucuses. He launched his campaign in time to file for the New Hampshire primary but has already missed filing deadlines in multiple other states.

I am not the first person to suggest this, but Patrick seems to have jumped into the race with a clear purpose in mind: to hurt Warren’s chances in New England. (For those who doubt Obama allies would operate like this, please remember who runs the Democratic National Committee, and why.)

Parene goes on to discuss the possibility that both Patrick and Bloomberg are also entering the primary, if only nominally, for yet another purpose — to put themselves in position to be chosen in a brokered convention. (That's a subject I'll also take up in a separate piece; gaming out the convention is actually not that difficult.)

But let's leave convention considerations for the moment. For now just consider the "tough conversation" that Patrick said he had with Warren prior to his recent announcement.

Why would it have been tough? Perhaps because Warren knew instantly exactly what he was up to — and didn't much like it.