A Personal Experience wth Privatization

Yesterday, Thursday September 24th, I rode my bike down to the National Mall to express support & admiration for the Pope & to stand in solidarity with those of compatible views. When the session at Congress was over & the motorcade had driven out of sight, I headed back in a homeward direction, discovering that many streets were still blocked to traffic & pedestrians so I was forces to zigzag in a general homeward direction. It was largely coincidental that I soon found myself in proximity to the H. Carl Moultrie courthouse of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Not long ago, I was summoned to appear at that courthouse to make myself available to serve on a jury. I showed up as ordered & spent an idle & mostly wasted day waiting to see if I would be called & selected. I was not; later in the day along with many other prospective jurors I was dismissed after having been given a plastic debit card drawn on Chase Bank (JPMorgan Chase) & credited with a dollar value of $4.00 which is the amount of Metro Fare here in DC & is what a person who is summoned & not selected for jury duty is paid. There were no written instructions on how these cards were to be redeemed but some general verbal instructions on the flavor of ATM's which would accept the cards without charging a fee. I did not rush out to claim my fee in cash as the amount due to me didn't seem overly significant. When I finally did, I sought out an approved ATM & was unable to cause it to dispense $4 or any other amount of money nor was I able to effect a tranfer of the sum to my own credit union account. Over the course of the follow several weeks I made a few more fruitless attempts. I will admit that by this time, the financial arrangements between the DC Court System & JP Morgan Chase was beginning to set off warning signals in my mind.

So, there I was on a weekday a block away from the courthouse; it was an easy decision to stop in seeking redress, repayment of debts owed or at minimum information. Pretty much immediately upon walking the bike into the open plaza leading up to the courthouse, I was accosted by a large uniformed & armed man demanding that I identify myself & state my business. I did state my name but then I said “I have business in the courthouse & I do not believe that there is any requirement that I answer any other questions.” He visibly eased up & said that most of the offices were closed for the Pope's visit & he was just trying to save me the trouble of finding that I couldn't conduct my business. He added that just about the only functioning service at the time was the information kiosk. I said that the information kiosk might very well be the only service I needed & he directed me to go into the building thru the security entrance. The woman at the information kiosk was at first defensive & I was angry but I tried to communicate that my anger was not directed a her personally & she was open to that concept. It took a bit of time – not an enormous amount – for me to explain my issue to her. Finally she told me firstly that she had no information on how I could claim my $4, that she believed that it was impossible to get $4 out of an ATM from a debit card, that my claim that this was a scam design to cheat people by the court system in cahoots with the bank was completely admissible, & finally that my assertion that I would refuse to show up for jury duty in the future unless that policy was changed would only result in my going to jail. I left with the remark that I hoped I would have sufficient courage to face jail in lieu of cooperating with a system designed to cheat me & disgrace the name of justice.

There is a bit more to this story which I almost forgot to mention. The woman at the information kiosk noticed that there existed a customer service number for Chase Bank on the back of my debit card & she suggested I call then. I agreed that was a good idea & thanked her. I did call the number this morning only to discover that my attempts to cash in the card had resulted in my $4 balance being reduced to almost nothing. I pushed buttons until being connected to what I think might have been a human being who told me that she could not cancel the services charges which had been assessed nor could she restore my balance. She suggested I might do something about the remaining balance - about a dollar - but I decided against any further efforts to seek justice. Actually, I decided to seek a different kind of justice!

Bernie's Rough Road Ahead

Bernie’s Rough Road Ahead

Like many progressive Democrats, I’ve watched with joy as Bernie Sanders boldly places issues on the national agenda that challenge the status quo. The strength of his early campaign is more than a pleasant surprise. In short, Bernie has won my heart. But he has not won my head. Maybe it is just because I don’t want to risk another disappointment or maybe it the result of lingering doubts about Sanders’ ultimate electability.

Over the past few weeks I’ve been trying to sort through my thoughts and, in particular, thinking about Bernie Sanders’ road to the Democratic nomination.  Polls are not much help at this stage, however much the media love them. Rather, the structure of the nominating process is what really sets the stage.

I was the executive director of the Rules Committee for the 1976 Democratic National Convention and was subsequently appointed to the Democratic Party’s Commission on Presidential Nomination and Party Structure. Most of the rules for selecting a Democratic presidential candidate were laid down in that period. They will create a great challenge for a campaign like Bernie’s

It is likely that Bernie will “win” Iowa, at least as the media will play it that way. Assuming the race is between him and Clinton and she puts major resources into Iowa, even a close second will be seen as a win. Bernie must win New Hampshire outright and should. I suspect that Clinton will make little effort in Bernie’s backyard. So where do things stand on February 10? The media will give Bernie two big wins but what will this mean for the rest of the process?

This is where it gets challenging.

From February 20 through March 22, 26 states will conduct primaries or caucuses.  These states include nearly all the Southern states and other red states such as Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Arizona, Idaho, Utah and Alaska. The most important of the southern states for Bernie are Florida, Virginia and North Carolina where there are pockets of white liberals.

One deep blue state, Massachusetts, also chooses delegates in this time frame. So does Minnesota that is more purple than blue. To Bernie’s advantage, both states have strongly progressive Democratic parties. Three powerhouse industrial states, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois, also have primaries during this period.

Bernie faces a real uphill battle after (presumably) winning Iowa and New Hampshire. The next state up is Nevada. It is a caucus state that where labor and minorities generally call the shots. This should be a fairly easy win for Clinton. Next is South Carolina where the primary electorate will be heavily black. Clinton is substantially ahead here. Jim Webb, if still a candidate, will put a major effort here to try to become the Southern Democratic candidate. In this climate, I believe, a 30% showing by Sanders would be a victory.

Then comes “Super Tuesday” on March 1. The following southern states will all have primaries on that day: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Massachusetts also has a March 1 primary and Minnesota has caucuses.

The next week does not get better with Louisiana, Nebraska and Kansas with primaries or caucuses.  Michigan comes on the 8^th as well and is likely to be seen as an acid test for Sanders. I foresee a big Sanders win in Massachusetts and a close one in Minnesota. The score at this point is likely to be 12 states for Clinton and four for Sanders, not counting Michigan.

Later in March come three powerhouse states: Illinois, Florida and Ohio. They are also states where Clinton is currently substantially ahead of Sanders in recent polling. Florida is an interesting battleground with its large Jewish voting population but also a very large minority population voting Democratic.

Polls show Sanders making real progress with white liberals and millennials, but not much movement among minorities. Clinton’s support among women, although somewhat weakened, is still very strong. Although the results are not clear, it appears that Bernie is making some progress among some rank and file workers.

Primaries and caucuses are low turnout events and therefore sensitive to a strong “ground game.” Obama certainly understood this in 2008 as did Clinton in 1992, Carter in 1976 and McGovern in 1972. A strong ground game can maximize turnout, especially if these is a motivated group of voters to be activated. Small states and those having caucus systems are the most likely to be won by “cause” candidates. This would explain, for example, Huckabee’s win in Iowa.

 I think Sanders has the potential to do this in several states and think his campaign is working in this direction. He faces two problems: can he grow his support in the crucial early primaries beyond white people who identify themselves as liberals, and can he finance a strong ground game in larger states?

Sanders is very unlikely to be able to increase his support much among minority voters. There are lots of reasons for this but, I think, he must continue courting them but not expect much in return. (Even if he doesn’t get much minority support during the primary season, he would need active support in the general.) His best two population groups with potential for growth in the nomination process are young voters and rank and file white workers. Neither group will have high turnouts in primaries, however, unless there is a strong and targeted effort at the ground level.

As an aside, most commentators see a Biden entry into the race as hurting Clinton more than Sanders. While this may be true in the aggregate, I think it would hurt Sanders more in the long run. Biden is a darling of the rank and file. His entry into New Hampshire is the one scenario that I can see that could keep Sanders from winning there. Southeastern New Hampshire is a heavy labor area where Biden would run extremely well. With him in the race and with a little effort by Clinton, it would be very difficult for Bernie to get the clear win he needs.

Biden would also run well in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio. He would erode Sanders’ support at the rank and file level and serve to block him in attempts to gain ground among this critical block of voters.

Bottom line, I see Biden as a bigger long range threat to Sanders than to Clinton.

But back the structure.

Democratic Party rules require the allocation of delegates selected in primaries and caucuses on a proportional basis, with the exception that no candidate receiving less than 15% of the vote gets delegates. Those votes are proportionately given to candidates getting more than the 15% threshold. What this means it that, even though the schedule is stacked against him, Sanders can come to the end of March with a fair number of committed delegates.

Starting on March 26 and running through June 7, western states and really big blue states hold their primaries and caucuses. The big question is whether Sanders will still be viable at this point. Washington and Oregon should be good for Sanders. California is currently pretty strong Clinton territory but it could swing. I don’t think Biden, if still in the race, will do well in the west.

But then there are the big eastern states. New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut and Rhode Island that have primaries in a two week stretch in April. This will be tough sledding for Sanders and these primaries come before California and Oregon. They are also expensive media states where a large war chest is essential. Assuming he is still viable at this point, will Sanders go after the big donors that will be needed to win?

So here we are. Time to talk about the filthy lucre of political contributions. Bernie is doing well attracting large numbers of smallish contributions and I think this will continue to be his central strategy. I doubt that Sanders will be able to duplicate Obama’s success in grass roots fundraising but even if he comes close, it will not be enough to win the big states where major media buys are essential.

I don’t presume to know what the exact number is, but Sanders will need to raise hundreds of millions if he is to win the nomination and then even more if he is to win the presidency. To a large extent, political money follows success. If Sanders comes through the first several weeks of the primary season as a credible candidate, I have no doubt that mega dollars will be there to be had. But Sanders will need to ask for them. I hope he will but, of course, this will turn off some of his supporters.

Beyond the primaries, there is the issue of automatic delegates. These are people who become delegates based on their status within the Democratic Party such as being governors, members of Congress, state party officers, etc. Unlike delegates selected through primaries and caucuses and therefore committed under party rules, automatic delegates are not. They are free to support any candidate regardless of primary outcomes in their states.

There will be about 3,200 committed delegates selected through primary and caucus voting and roughly 730 automatic, uncommitted delegates. By and large, they will tend to follow primary results in their states but they can act as power brokers in a close convention.  That said, the automatic delegates are the party establishment and are currently still skeptical of Sanders’ electability. Primary wins will certainly help, but Sanders’ campaign should be ready to work this group starting right now.

The Sanders campaign faces several tough decisions over the next several weeks. For example, they need to decide how much resource to put into early voting red states. He cannot let Clinton (or Clinton/Biden) have a free run but he also needs to focus his resources on states he must win later. Many of those states will be very expensive. (It is no accident that Southern states decided to hold their primaries in such a short window early in the process. They see this move as an offset to a liberal bias they perceive resulting from Iowa and New Hampshire results.)

.

A second decision must be finding the right balance between building credibility among minority voters and growing strength among millennials and working class whites. This must be reflected both in messaging and personal campaigning. Polling shows significant distrust of older white liberals and “privileged” college kids among minority and working class voters. Big rallies on college campuses are actually a turnoff for these groups.

The third, and I believe the most difficult decision, will be whether his campaign can raise enough money to be competitive in large states without changing its fundraising strategy.

And then, if Sanders looks like a winner early in the year, the very effective right wing/ Republican attack machine will go to work on him. They have been very effective in raising doubts about Clinton over non-issues even among Democrats, so Bernie’s “clean” record will not exempt him from these attacks. He will need strong third party voices ready to respond and this gives his campaign another thing to be working on in the upcoming weeks.

In summary, Sanders has done extremely well to this point in the race but the road ahead is a lot tougher than the one already travelled.

Some Background and Perspective on US Immigration and Immigration Reform

Will the Real Populists Please Stand Up?

“At its root, populism is a belief in the power of regular people, and in their right to have control over their government rather than a small group of political insiders or wealthy elite.” (vocabulary.com)

The mainstream media (MSM) has been promoting the idea that US politics is currently experiencing the rise of a new populism, a form of extremism on both the left (as exemplified by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, et al) and the right (as exemplified by most, if not all, of the Republican candidates for President).

This attempt is designed to dismiss both as extremist departures from the traditional moderate positions of the Republican and Democratic Parties – in the center – which is supposedly the only way to win elections and to govern.

There are two interrelated problems with this analysis. The first is that to equate what is happening on the left and the right and to call both populist, totally eviscerates the meaning of populism. Sanders and the “Warren wing” of the Democratic Party are, in fact, true populists in that they represent “the power of the people” in the struggle against the wealthy elite which dominates politics in the US (and unfortunately both political parties). The policies they put forth have the potential for broad support among the populace and they offer a vision of what a government of all the people can look like.

Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Walker, Bush and the rest of the Republican circus represent the existing power structure and the wealthy elite. While they use fear, uncertainty and distrust to win “popular” support for some of their ideas, their base is not that of ordinary people, but of the ruling classes. Their vision is that of a government that serves the interests of that elite, providing protection at home and abroad for their wealth, promoting privatization of the commons, etc. all designed to increase the wealth and power of the few at the expense of the many. That’s the antithesis of populism.

The second problem with this analysis is that it diverts attention from the content of the true populist platform. Because that platform has broad appeal, the ruling elite will do anything it can to prevent it from being aired. They are terrified by the prospect of another “New Deal” which might reinstate (and, heaven forbid, even expand) the rights and protections of ordinary Americans, which have been eroded over the past forty years. Their goal is to marginalize this populist sentiment; one way to do this is to equate it to the reactionary idea that they themselves have supported on the right.

The real populists are standing up for all of us. We need to support them in any way we can.

George Vlasits

September 7, 2015