Just a quick update to keep things current as to election news - a follow-up on my earlier column on Iowa (sans the music).
Vote free or die, they say in New Hampshire; and that they did. Trump cleaned up handily in the Republican race (yes, they had one of those), drawing out a hefty cadre even though it was patently obvious he would win. The real news was the Democratic primary.
As an aside, I assume the minor non-parties may have held some sort of contest - or will - but, as the good people have decided that they will only suffer bi-polar (ha!) political control, then the outliers are as worthy of consideration as what the Old Man on the Mountain thinks about his late nose. Boothead Guy, while entertaining, isn’t viable.
The Democrat Rankings:
Bernie Sanders - 25.8%
Pete Buttigieg - 24.5%
Amy Klobuchar - 19.8%
Elizabeth Warren - 9.2%
Joe Biden - 8.4%
Tom Steyer - 3.6%
Tulsi Gabbard - 3.3%
Andrew Yang - 2.8%
A breakdown:
Sen. Sanders is the obvious choice of the people of the left. He is also almost universally despised by the DNC. They stole his nomination in 2016 and they will do it again this year. This is interesting as he is one of two candidates who could possibly hold a candle to Trump later in the year. In an age when populism rises, he is the popular pick.
Mayor Pete is the choice of the CIA and the deep state. He stands precisely 0.00% chance against Trump.
Amy Klobuchar, of whom I am still blissfully ignorant, is the DNC’s choice, the moderate, or so I am told by someone in the know. She shares Pete’s odds against Trump.
Sen. Warren was my pick for the nomination, a Hillary-lite if you will. She appears to be slipping hard and fast. Things are still early. Regardless, I give her the above odds in November.
Old Joe is done. Dog-faced pony soldier???
The rest, to include the non-placing Mike Bloomberg, are essentially out of the race, with Yang now officially so. The only one worth commenting on is Tulsi Gabbard.
The most lovely lady from Hawaii is the most serious ideological challenge that the DNC could mount in the general election - a soldier who has been in the sh!t and still shuns the eternal Washingtonian policy of war uber alles. She receives next to no attention, however, even as her other positions are moderate enough to have a long shot against the Donald; that potential contest being a one-ups-manship of “well, hey, we can talk about that.” (When all is said and done, more is said than done).
There are dark horses, as I previously mentioned, continuing to lurk darkly. The two most prominent lurkers have names like Hillary and Michelle. If the DNC convention is brokered, then maybe look for one of them to slink from the shadows. Also, grant them the same general odds given to Pete & Co. - zero.
If the Democratic machine wanted to actually win, and it appears they do not, then they would craft a ticket of Bernie for Prez and Tulsi for Veep. A recent survey rated the economy, education, healthcare, and war very highly among the concerns of the populace. A Sanders/Gabbard ticket would best address those issues from the left. In short, Bernie could bring the popularity, Tulsi the honesty (and the ever-important photogenic factor). The party leadership, despite their best efforts to appear otherwise, are not stupid. That they actively shun the realistic choice says something. I am not exactly sure what that is, but it feels a bit like the behavior and whooping statements of the “heels” in professional rasslin’. Odd? Trump currently plays the “face.” The people play themselves, the audience, with their signs waving and chants echoing. Who’s the Vince Mcmahon in this analogy?
Potential Electoral Predictions (just PREDICTIONS):
Trump/Pence, 55%; Sanders/Gabbard, 45%.
Trump/Pence, 70%; Petey/Klawbark/Whoever/Anyone Else, 30%.
*I was informed that the “Pony Soldiers” may have been the gang led by the formidable Corn Pop. You know, back in the day… No idea.
**Hopefully, this will conclude election coverage for the near-term. Something, next week.
