As of late yesterday something like 250,000 people had cancelled their subscriptions to The Washington Post. That’s roughly 10% of their subscriber base. So yeah, not good. I’m a Post subscriber and I didn’t. But I did cancel my Amazon Prime membership. (That’ll show ’em.)
The reason as I’m sure you know, is that the Post’s owner Jeff Bezos, prohibited the paper’s editorial board from making an endorsement in the presidential race … barely a week before the election. (The Post still makes endorsements in local races.) The Post was going to endorse Harris, and Bezos, who has myriad contracts with vital regulatory and financial issues connected to the federal government is justifiably afraid of what Trump could do to him if elected … and pissed off. Never mind Bezos’ blather saying, “What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”
That folks, is bullshit. What anyone with two eyes, two ears and half a brain fully understands is that Bezos is worried — and with good reason — about what Trump could do to the shareholder value of his sprawling empire. But multi-multi-billionaire Bezos is hardly alone in his fear of Trump 2.0 settling scores with anyone “disloyal” to him.
America’s signature titan of finance, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, is understood to support Harris over Trump, but will not step out on the record and say so, for the same reasons as Bezos. Said a New York Times story on Dimon’s silence, “Mr. Dimon isn’t making his stance known publicly because he’s fearful that if Mr. Trump is victorious, he could retaliate against the people and companies who publicly opposed his run, his associates said. That’s a concern shared by other powerful corporate executives, and not without reason: Mr. Trump has begun to increase threats of political retribution in recent weeks.“
Bezos and Dimon are hardly alone. Even Bill Gates, these days recognized as a progressive-enough philanthropist, is keeping quiet on a risky public choice in this particular election.
Likewise, Warren Buffett is staying on the sidelines this time around. “Warren Buffett is not taking sides in the election despite any online speculation, AI deepfakes or falsehoods that have or may emerge. Buffett, often called the ‘Oracle of Omaha’, has been mostly neutral regarding politics for years. Buffet has been unusually silent in the lead-up to November 5 despite formerly being a vocal advocate of Democrats like Clinton in 2016 and Obama in 2008 and 2012.”
Weasely tech twits like Mark Zuckerberg at Meta/Facebook are of course playing their usual, “We have no role here” game. But that’s what they always do.
The fear Trump strikes in the minds of people like Bezos, Dimon, Gates and Buffett is startling — to me at least. “Startling”, but as I say, understandable. A Trump 2.0 administration stocked with a deep bench of capos far, far more devious and disciplined than 1.0 idiots like Kash Patel, Peter Navarro, Mike Flynn, Rudy Giuliani and on … and on … is a legitimate, real world concern for any executive with responsibilities to investors. Not that that makes their silence any more courageous.
But what, I keep wondering, about Jeb and George W. Bush? What are they afraid of?
I don’t for a second think either Bush coming out and endorsing Harris over Trump would have a decisive impact on voters, even old school country club Republicans. But it couldn’t hurt. A couple silver-haired geezers tallying up their latest dividend statements before teeing off might say to each other, “Sure, she’s a radical socialialist. But if Jeb and W* are with her just this once, maybe I will too. I mean WTF is with that tariff shit?”
Neither Bush has any future in the fully Trumpified Republican party. (Ever notice how W* is never mentioned … ever … by Republican pundits?) But they might feel some restored legitimacy in the event of a Trump-induced GOP blow-out. Maybe. But only if they did the brave thing and stood up before the election and said something.
I mean, I understand W* and Dick Cheney are no longer close. (Letting Dick talk him into an off-the-books trillion dollar 12 year war will do that to a friendship.) But my god, if Dick Cheney, in Wyoming, can summon the guts (and lower) to call Trump a disaster and publicly endorse Harris, what possible reason do the Bush’s have for not doing it?
*Elected not by a majority of voters, but by a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court.
As promised — (ok, “threatened”) — you have here the first of a new Wry Wing Politics recurring feature. Your Democratic Presidential Candidate Power Rankings. (Insert flatulent tuba sound effect.)
As briefly as possible, this is the shtick:
Candidates are given two percentage scores. One for their real world potential, based on the fact that at this point in the game most voters only really know two or three of them. (Biden, Bernie and Elizabeth Warren to a lesser degree.) Then there’s a second ranking for, shall we say, a somewhat more informed opinion (mine) of each candiate’s ability to compete with Donald Trump and his despotic allies, which is to say Russian troll farms, North Korean web hackers, Saudi bone-saw artists-cum-financiers as well as wholly corrupt and nefarious American actors like Bill Barr, Mitch McConnell and the vast, echoing right-wing sewer.
The two scores are then averaged to produce … Your WWP Pow-pow-pow-errrr Rankings!
#1: 91% / 42%. (66.5%)Joe Biden. Biden is pretty much all name recognition. Which normally counts for a lot. His “blue collar” cred — (which is baffling since the guy’s been prowling the starchiest white collar halls of DC power for what, 50 years?) — still has detectable cachet with the much-anguished over “Reagan Democrats”, i.e. white guys roughly Joe’s age in the Rust Belt. But they truly are the crowd paying very little attention at this moment. The big downside with Joe is his (very) old school judgment. From Anita Hill to the gamed-out credit card system in Delaware, Joe has forever played the give-a-lot-to-get-a-little DC influence game. The fact that he was unprepared and taken aback by Kamala Harris’s busing shots in the first debate proves again he is nowhere near nimble enough to deal with a campaign cycle already veering into shamelessly reckless histrionics and corruption.
#2: 65% / 61%. (63%) Elizabeth Warren. Less name recognition than Joe and Bernie, but a whole lot more than the bottom dozen, plus the most fully thought-out policy proposals keeps Warren high up in the rankings. She’s smart, principled and tireless. But as a performer, a bit too single-note in her (well justified) indignation and outrage. Democrats are thoroughly disgusted with Trump, but the general population tends to gravitate to candidates who they feel are “cool” and “in control” and yet still capable, even in the face of epic stupidity, corruption and racism, to crack a smile from time to time. Another demerit is, like everyone else, Warren shows no sign of having a plan for neutering Mitch McConnell. Which means her grand, laudable policy proposals are DOA.
#3: 38% / 85%. (61.5%)Kamala Harris. In my capacity as all-knowing seer, Harris checks most of the boxes required to soundly defeat Trump. Essentially, they are these: no other candidate offers as dramatic a contrast to a lazy, corrupt misogynist and bigot as a black, female former state attorney general. Her relative youthfulness also signals to Millenials and younger (75% of whom vote Democrat) that she may also be aware of and concerned with issues 20 years down the road as well as the degradation Trump has wrought today. Moreover, Harris best signals, as I’ve said before, a wiliness — a higher level of enemy recognition and preparation for the truly foul and unexpected — then almost all of the others. She knows how to play the game to win. And … I’ve seen her smile.
#4: 21% / 80%. (50.5%)Pete Buttegieg. Mayor Pete I believe is the real deal, and in a normal world, (which has never existed), a nearly ideal candidate. Someone with Buttegieg’s remarkable intelligence and thoughtful demeanor is desperately needed to guide the world through climate change and reset key fundamentals — Supreme Court, electoral college — of our gamed-out, less-than democratic order. The appeal of a (really) smart gay guy to sophgisticated urban voters may well outweigh the inevitable troglodyte bigotry of rural Trumpists. Also, of all the mano a mano debate scenarios, Buttegieg v. Really Stable Genius is the one I’d like to see most.
#5: 52% / 43%. (47.5%) Bernie Sanders. Who doesn’t love Bernie? His Medicare for All idea is wildly implausible. (Let’s imagine for a second what UnitedHealth would do if President Bernie served up a bill putting them out of business in four years.) But, as The Stranger said to Jeff Lebowski, “I like yer style, dude.” Bernie is simply too old and too easily identified (and caricatured) as a “wild-eyed Socialist”, never mind that no one accusing him of that has the faintest idea what Socialism really means in 21st century USA. And like Warren, I’ve never been able to imagine Bernie beating Mitch McConnell at anything truly devious. His light is dimming as we enter the next round of debates.
#6: 27% / 62% (44.5%)Julian Castro. A pleasant surprise in the first debates. I had forgotten how articulate the guy was in Obama’s cabinet. (Remember when cabinet officials weren’t just a pack of decrepit grifters running up fat tabs on the taxpayers’ dime?) I see no path for him to the top of the ticket, but a smart, honest Hispanic from Texas as VP? Interesting. Very Interesting.
#7: 36% / 51%. (43.5%)Cory Booker. If Barack Obama hadn’t already broken the race barrier for the Oval Office, Booker might be given more consideration. But, he just doesn’t compare all that well to Obama. Maybe it’s the New Jersey thing and having to play paddy-cake with all the Wall St. fat cats living in his suburbs, but he’s too slippery for my tastes and, ironically, not nearly as quick on his feet as Harris or Buttegieg in the face of jaw-dropping stupidity … of which there will be a superfund-sized waste dump to deal with in 2020.
#8: 18% / 44%. (31%)Amy Klobuchar. Our gal hasn’t created any forward motion for herself. Her relatively high-standing here is more a reflection of the stark inadequacies of everyone lower than she is. Her performance before the NAACP convention in Detroit this past weekend exposed a potentially fatal flaw in her record, certainly in terms of inspiring the minority vote. By oh-so carefully threading the needle between supporting cops (appeals to rurals) and acknowleding an “outrageous situation” (sorta satisfies urban voters) with regard to cop conduct, she’s got dime deep support among blacks.
#9: 11% / 36%. (23.5%)Beto O’Rourke. Is this guy still even running? Talk about a vanishing act. As the past months have gone by I’m more and more convinced that the fanatical enthusiasm for his Texas Senate race last year was all about how much people despise Ted Cruz. There should be a “lane” for a candidate speaking the lingua franca of contemporary Americanese, peppered wit readily understanable pop culture references, metaphors and aphorisms. Passionate but common verbiage, in other words. Instead, the O’Rourke of 2019 sounds like he’s had his head injected with a quart of Stepford Candidate gelatin. Dude!
#10: 6% / 36%. (21%) Michael Bennet. Bennet is actually someone you could make a case for, if he were running against, umm, Bob Dole or George W. He’s intelligent and decent. Unfortunately he is about as compelling and inspiring as a “Clean Government Now!’ leaflet handed out on a street corner. Stay in the Senate and figure out a way to publicly de-pants Mitch McConnell. (I apologize for the imagery.)
#11 9% / 25% (17%)Kirsten Gillibrand. This woman reeks of un-modulated personal ambition. Is that me, a white guy, calling a woman “pushy”? Yeah, I suppose it is. So sue me. As much as she wants to deny it, her — ambition-driven — putsch against Al Franken really is a defining factor is her campaign. It was indelible proof of what a lot of Democratic party insiders thought she was all about as she clawed her way up the party ranks in New York. Just go away.
#12: 5% / 24%. (14.5%) Jay Inslee. Agreed. Climate change should be Issue Number One. Unfortunately, until all of Trump’s Griftopia is in cinders and (here I go again) Mitch McConnell is caught in bed with a live girl AND a dead boy, the topic won’t get so much as a committee vote in the Senate. Your candidacy is futile. But by all means keeping beating the climate drum.
#13: 3% / 18%. (10.5%) Steve Bullock. Why? You’ve been a reasonably popular governor in a mountain west state (with a third the population of Brooklyn) where the majority of men like to think they’re the Marlboro man incarnate. Go back to Montana and run for Senate against Steve Daines.
#14: 2% / 13%. (7.5%) Tulsi Gabbard. Again, I’m not sure what it is she’s really after? A Senate run? The Governorship of Hawaii? Apology withstanding, her anti-LGBT rhetoric forever places her in “deep outlier” land among 21st century liberals.
#15: 2% / 10%. (6%) John Hickenlooper. What I said about Steve Bullock. Faced off against the right candidate, Cory Gardner is an easy, fat target in Colorado. Go home and get yourself elected to that job.
#16: 2% / 8%. (5%) Andrew Yang. Okay. Another book deal and speaking engagements. I get it. But beyond that, you’re part of the season’s comic relief.
#17: 1% / 6%. (3.5%)Bill DeBlasio. He has progressive bona fides. But apparently no one actually, you know, likes the guy. Other than that, the country may have maxed-out its appeal for big, self-agrandizing Manhattanites.
#18: 0% /3%. (1.5%) Tom Steyer. I’ve seen your commercials. “Impeach the moronic racist now!” (TM David Simon.) As a billionaire, your job is to keep buying TV time … for someone else.
#19: 0% / 1%. (0.5%)John Delaney. Why is anyone listening to this guy at all? Or wait, what I mean is, “Is anyone listening to this guy, at all?”
#20: 0% / 0%. (0%) Marianne Williamson. Listening to her is like what I imagine Gwyneth Paltrow would sound like as a candidate. “When I pass a flowering zucchini plant in a garden, my heart skips a beat.” (Actual Paltrow quote.) But, unlike Kirsten Gillibrand, I’d have a couple glasses of organic wine with Williamson — and not throw one in her face.
