People Like Oprah-- But Not As A Presidential Candidate... Although Better Her Than Trumpanzee

Last Friday we looked at how sick voters have become of celebrities and CEOs and celebrity CEOs running for office-- and not just of Trumpanzee. One utterly clueless foreign betting firm was giving odds that Oprah Winfrey would win the Democratic presidential nomination. I should have bet! Democrats aren't going to be nominating the likes of Oprah, Mark Zuckenberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Mark Cuban, Tom Steyer, Carly Fiorina or Mike Bloomberg anytime soon. And that was confirmed by a new Morning Consult poll that found that "most voters do not think Oprah Winfrey should run for president in 2020" even though she'd "hold a narrow lead over President Donald Trump in a hypothetical head-to-head 2020 matchup." After her Golden Globe moment of grandeur, Morning Consult found that just 24% of respondents thought she should run-- as opposed to 59% who said she shouldn't. Although Democratic voters would prefer her over the odious Kirsten Gillibrand-- 44-23%-- most voters would prefer Bernie or Biden to Oprah.

Quinnipiac also released a new poll that may have some relevance for the 2020 election. [They also asked who they would vote for between Trumpanzee and Oprah and found Oprah ahead 52-39%-- "But American voters say 66 - 14 percent that electing a celebrity to the office of president is a bad idea."] But mostly Quinnipiac was trying to figure out how many voters have figured out that Señor Trumpanzee is batshitcrazy. The nation is split. Crazy people (45%) think Trump is just fine. Sane people (47%) recognize we have an insane "president." Most men think he's sane; most women have figured out that he's not. Regardless of his mental state, most voters, by a wide margin (57-38%) disapprove of how he's handling his job.

Trump is doing more to divide the nation than to unite the nation, voters say 64 - 31 percent. Every listed party, gender, education, age and racial group says the president is dividing the nation except Republicans, who say 70 - 24 percent that he is doing more to unite the nation, and white voters with no college degree, who are divided 48 - 46 percent.

Trump does not respect people of color as much as he respects white people, voters say 59 - 38 percent. Republicans, white voters with no college degree and white men are the only listed groups who say he respects people of color as much as white people.

"President Donald Trump can't seem to improve his approval rating, perhaps because of the troubling fact that half of the voters we spoke to think he is mentally unstable," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

"The president is a divider, not a uniter, say an overwhelming number of voters, an assessment made even more disturbing by his perceived lack of respect for people of color."

American voters say 58 - 35 percent the comments President Trump allegedly made about immigrants from certain countries are racist.

Of course, people of color aren't the only targets of Trump's vicious bigotry and grotesque ignorance. The Committee to Protect Journalists released a list of the world’s worst press oppressors. Señor Trumpanzee took home the top honor, beating out, for example outright fascists like:

• Vladimir Putin
• Tayyip Erdoğan
• Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

John McCain: "Reagan recognized that as leader of the free world, his words carried enormous weight, and he used it to inspire the unprecedented spread of democracy around the world. President Donald Trump does not seem to understand that his rhetoric and actions reverberate in the same way. He has threatened to continue his attempt to discredit the free press by bestowing 'fake news awards' upon reporters and news outlets whose coverage he disagrees with. Whether Trump knows it or not, these efforts are being closely watched by foreign leaders who are already using his words as cover as they silence and shutter one of the key pillars of democracy... The phrase 'fake news'-- granted legitimacy by an American president-- is being used by autocrats to silence reporters, undermine political opponents, stave off media scrutiny and mislead citizens...We become better, stronger and more effective societies by having an informed and engaged public that pushes policymakers to best represent not only our interests but also our values. Journalists play a major role in the promotion and protection of democracy and our unalienable rights, and they must be able to do their jobs freely. Only truth and transparency can guarantee freedom."

Today Gallup released some new findings: World's Approval of U.S. Leadership Drops to New Low. "One year into Donald Trump's presidency, the image of U.S. leadership is weaker worldwide than it was under his two predecessors. Median approval of U.S. leadership across 134 countries and areas stands at a new low of 30%, according to a new Gallup report. Obama left office with a 48% worldwide U.S. approval rating. After a year of Trump, that's fallen to 30%-- an 18% collapse.

The relatively fragile image of U.S. leadership in 2017 reflects large and widespread losses in approval and relatively few gains. Out of 134 countries, U.S. leadership approval ratings declined substantially-- by 10 percentage points or more-- in 65 countries that include many longtime U.S. allies and partners.

Portugal, Belgium, Norway and Canada led the declines worldwide, with approval ratings of U.S. leadership dropping 40 points or more in each country. While majorities in each of these countries approved of U.S. leadership in 2016, majorities disapproved in 2017.

In contrast, U.S. leadership approval increased 10 points or more in just four countries: Liberia (+17), Macedonia (+15), Israel (+14), and Belarus (+11). The 67% of Israelis who approve of U.S. leadership is on par with the ratings Israelis gave the U.S. during the Bush administration. Notably, interviewing in Israel took place before Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, but he had repeatedly promised to do so during his campaign for president.

...The losses in U.S. leadership approval may have implications on U.S. influence abroad. With its stable approval rating of 41%, Germany has replaced the U.S. as the top-rated global power in the world. The U.S. is now on nearly even footing with China (31%) and barely more popular than Russia (27%) -- two countries that Trump sees as rivals seeking to "challenge American influence, values and wealth."

One of the sharpest declines in confidence in US leadership in the new Gallup poll was in the UK, where it dropped by 26 percentage points. A third of Britons questioned in the new poll expressed approval, with 63% voicing disapproval.

You Want Another CEO As President? How About A Celebrity CEO?

Trumpanzee said Oprah would "always be my first choice" for a running mate. "She's popular, she's brilliant, she's a wonderful woman. It would be a pretty good ticket."

Oprah... are you fucking joking? Isn't one clueless celebrity enough for a couple of centuries, at least a couple of centuries-- even a far less clueless one?

Diamond Sportsbook International, an online betting firm headquartered in Costa Rica since 1998 is offering odds on Oprah Winfrey’s "bid to become the United States’ next president" and the oddsmakers heavily favor her to win the the Democratic primary (-350 odds means risk $350 to win $100), but she is better than a 2-to-1 underdog to win the 2020 Presidential Election (+220 odds means risk $100 to win $220).

Will Oprah Winfrey run for U.S. President in 2020?

Yes -400
No +330

Will Oprah Winfrey win the U.S. Presidency in 2020?

Yes +220
No -270

Will Oprah Winfrey win the Democratic Primary in 2020?

Yes -350
No +290

In April 2016 author, labor activist, former congressional candidate and host of the popular Working Life podcast Jonathan Tasini wrote a piece for the New York Daily News explaining why CEOs are not suited to be president. Obviously, he was especially referring to Señor Trumpanzee but today his article needs to be re-read in relation to "possible" presidential runs/trial balloons by Oprah, Mark Zuckenberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Mark Cuban, Tom Steyer, Carly Fiorina again and, as always, Mike Bloomberg... or any number of CEOs who think if an imbecile like Trunp could do it, anyone could. Short version: companies are not democracies. Let's remember what Ron Reagan, Jr told Don Lemon on CNN yesterday. Trumpanzee "came to office unfit. He did not develop a malady at some point that rendered him unfit. He is characterlogically if not pathologically unfit and that's apparent for all to see." And always was. Tasini:

Putting aside the loathsome racist rhetoric, pomposity and all the rest, there is a fundamental question worth asking about Donald Trump: Why would anyone think a business executive is qualified to run a country?

Perhaps it’s understandable why a billionaire magnate seems like an attractive leader to some. Incomes are flat, governments appear incapable of charting a course for economic security and people are uneasy about the future. From the fog of paralysis, a savior appears: the self-proclaimed savvy businessman insulting the intelligence of everyone who’s tried to fix our intractable problems, offering to get everything ship-shape.

But while it might seem like an attractive proposition, it’s highly debatable whether a CEO is the kind of person we should entrust to manage national affairs.

Perhaps the most obvious point is companies are essentially dictatorships. The CEO is the boss. While the CEO-as-supreme-leader model might work well in Syria, Uzbekistan or North Korea, it’s fundamentally at odds with democracies.

Give-and-take, compromise and patience might be messy and tedious in the political world but, in most democracies, those factors are part of the checks and balances every political leader has to accept. The occasional politician who demands a CEO-type my-way-or-the-highway fealty doesn’t last long in office.

Imagine Rupert Murdoch sitting still for a parliamentary negotiation, or the perpetually impatient Bill Gates biding his time while the U.S. Congress debated, for weeks, whether to pass a farm bill.

More important, as economist Paul Krugman points out in a slim book called “A Country Is Not a Company,” companies operate in very different environments than countries. An economy is monumentally more complex than a company, no matter how large the private enterprise.

Krugman focuses on an essential difference: “Businesses-- even very large corporations-- are generally open systems. . . By contrast, a national economy-- especially that of a very large country like the United States-- is a closed system.”

In the open-system world facing a CEO, when a company does well, the CEO can expand lines of business and hire more workers. As it grows, the company can, as a whole, perform well and without regard to how it might hurt another company engaged in a similar market. The CEO’s only concern is watching his own bottom line.

But in a national economy, a leader does not have the same luxury. One industry’s job growth from exports driven by a highly valued domestic currency, for example, often comes at a loss to someone else’s jobs in another industry that is hurt by an overvalued currency. A national economy’s closed system-- that is, a system where a pie is divided up among competing interests-- is inherently a more conflicted ecosystem. And in that conflict reside political challenges a CEO is ill-equipped to manage.

By believing that a CEO is inherently equipped to do a better job than current political leaders from other walks of life, we aren’t really understanding, or are refusing to acknowledge, the deeper problem. Our worldwide crisis-- too many unemployed or underemployed workers, a declining standard of living, a vast gap between rich and poor, eroding retirement security, all coupled with an existential threat to life on the planet due to climate change-- has little to do with a failure to run a nation with executive-like efficiency.

Instead, it’s a failure of morality and vision. It’s a direct outcome of an economic system-- the so-called free market-- that has delivered prosperity only to a handful of people while impoverishing most everyone else.

Running a failed economic system with CEO-like efficiency isn’t the answer. In fact, an honest debate would make crystal clear that CEOs embrace a set of beliefs and institutions that have gotten us into the mess we face. Their core instincts are to continue to offer more economic insanity over a path to sustainability.

They are therefore not suited to run a nation.