I’ve made no secret in these pages of the concerns I had if presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden selected U.S. CA Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate.  I acknowledge that this note is primarily lament.

Given Mr. Biden’s age, Sen. Harris will clearly be assessed by voters as someone who could be President.  Ms. Harris isn’t qualified.  Three-plus years as a United States Senator after a career as a prosecutor does not prepare one for the presidency.  Fans of former President Barack Obama might point out that Mr. Obama assumed the presidency after the same period of Senate service.  I would counter – while having complete respect for Mr. Obama’s rectitude and offering tremendous credit for his lifting the national mood at the lowest point of the Great Recession and leading us to the Affordable Care Act – that comparing Ms. Harris to Mr. Obama is as much indictment as endorsement; Mr. Obama consistently stumbled in foreign policy, lacked the canniness to master Congressional relations, and showed no ability to establish rapport with or address the needs of the disillusioned citizens in states like Iowa and Ohio who voted for him in hope and later turned to then-candidate Donald Trump in despair.  Ms. Harris has no notable foreign policy expertise and evinces no greater affinity for these dispossessed citizens than Mr. Obama had — while lacking the former President’s charisma.

Ms. Harris’ oft-repeated phrase during the Democratic presidential debates – “I will prosecute the case against Donald Trump” – brought to my mind another potential weakness.  Any trial lawyer on a major case does exhaustive discovery to learn all s/he can about the dispute and then attempts to conceptualize the appropriate response to all variations of all aspects of whatever might come up at trial.  A daunting task – but even in complex litigation, the variables are finite.  In a presidential campaign, the variables are infinite, and cannot all be anticipated.  Presumably, Mr. Biden saw Ms. Harris’ political experience as an asset when compared to (for example) former U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice.  While Ms. Harris is good when scripted, I saw her clutch several times in the early months of the presidential campaign when reporters asked her questions she did not expect.  In one of the debates, Ms. Harris blanked when U.S. HI Rep. Tulsi Gabbard claimed that Ms. Harris, when a prosecutor, withheld evidence of innocence against a defendant in a capital case.  (Different issue:  if Ms. Gabbard’s claim is substantially true — I haven’t seen any fact checking on it – I expect the Republicans to use it to attempt to suppress turnout in this George Floyd era.)  In the next three months, Ms. Harris will be asked everything from her favorite brand of running shoe (Is it made in China with child labor?) to whether we should intervene to protect the citizens in an obscure Yemen town under siege.  How she holds up will be pivotal to the Democratic ticket’s chances.  (To see what havoc an uninformed answer can wreak, do an internet search on the phrase, “Gary Johnson  Aleppo”.)  Ms. Harris also proved predictable; I do not look forward to the many times we will hear in the coming months that she ran the nation’s second largest Justice Department, and that she’s been to more funerals than she can tell us.

Ms. Harris has indisputably softened some of her more conservative “law and order” prosecutorial positions as she has sought the Senate and the presidency, which seemingly makes her vulnerable to Republican attacks both that she’s too soft on crime and a flip-flopper to boot.  I consider her California residence a weakness:  many Americans will viscerally accept the Trump Campaign’s allegations that Ms. Harris is a “radical California leftist” and perhaps pay heed to the Trump claim that Mr. Biden is under the control of the “radical left.”  On a more objective note:  Mr. Biden is going to win California’s electoral votes no matter whom he picked, so a chance to establish additional affinity with a swing state through the VP selection has been forfeited.

Finally, there remains the internet search, “Willie Brown Kamala Harris.”  I don’t expect to see the Republicans use this line of attack until after Ms. Harris is formally nominated.  If they do, one would have to be Pollyanna on steroids not to believe that it will suppress the Democratic vote of “Me Too” advocates and swing state suburban Republican women heretofore leaning against President Trump.

Presumably, in addition to Ms. Harris’ political experience, Mr. Biden was attracted to her relatively more aggressive style – as contrasted again, for example, with Ms. Rice – for a contest that I have recently heard predicted to be “a knife fight in an alley.”  If so, in this way the pick calls to mind Dwight Eisenhower’s selection of Richard Nixon in 1952 and Gerald Ford’s selection of Robert Dole in 1976; in both instances, the presidential nominee sought to remain above the fray while selecting a brawler as his running mate.  If this was indeed Mr. Biden’s thinking, I hope it is correct.  Sitting in a swing state, my instinct is that the citizens of these states seek less contentiousness and more calm competence.  I am genuinely concerned about how Ms. Harris’ style will fare in her debate with the somnolent Vice President Mike Pence – despite Mr. Pence’s unblemished record as a sycophant, toady, fawner, bootlicker, lickspittle, and kisser of Mr. Trump’s … er … rear.  In the 2016 Vice Presidential debate, Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Tim Kaine tried to be aggressive with Mr. Pence, and, contrary to all expectations, Mr. Pence won – handily.

In a note a while back, “The Right Choice,” I suggested, “There is no [potential Vice President] candidate whose record will not contain some vulnerabilities that will have to be explained.  [Mr. Biden] might as well do his explaining on behalf of the running mate that he considers best equipped to serve all American people and their interests.” As one who truly feels that the fate of the nation depends upon getting Mr. Trump out of the White House and will vote for the Democratic ticket no matter who the Vice Presidential nominee is, I am disappointed in Mr. Biden’s selection of Ms. Harris.  I can only hope that he didn’t make … the Wrong Choice.

… how odd it is for President Trump – the incumbent – to be complaining about the possibility of a rigged presidential election in 2020?  Consider some of the world’s most renowned autocracies:  Russia, China, Turkey, and Venezuela.  Add in innumerable little autocratic nations across the globe masquerading as democracies.  Isn’t it usually the challengers that claim an election system is rigged?

Although our presidential electoral “process” – which, based upon a federalized, decentralized structure, is actually 51 (counting the District of Columbia) individual processes – is less amenable to manipulation by an incumbent than those of many autocracies, and while acknowledging that four of the six generally-accepted swing states — Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – have Democratic Governors, I note that each of these four states has a bicameral legislature in which both houses are controlled by Republicans.  Arizona and Florida Republicans respectively control their statehouses and both houses of their bicameral legislatures.  Clearly, and despite Mr. Trump’s claims, Republicans will be in position to monitor the fairness of the elections in these pivotal states.

As of the time this is posted, Congress has yet to renew the federal unemployment relief that expired at the end of July.  The Trump Administration and the Senate are currently balking at the bill extending current unemployment benefits, affording funding for COVID testing, and providing relief to local governments passed months ago by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives.  In purely political terms, the Republicans’ intransigence seems to me sheer lunacy.  Certain impressions are too deeply embedded in the American psyche to be readily overcome.  If one asks the vast majority of Americans whether Ronald Reagan ever agreed to an income tax increase during his presidency, they’ll say, “No”; but he did.  Given the widespread and deep [and not entirely inaccurate ;)] conception of Democrats as profligate spenders, most Americans in need will viscerally hold Republicans accountable for the delay no matter the GOP rationale.  While the Republicans figuratively quibble about gas mileage and tire tread, their dawdling – and perhaps in some instances, 2024 political posturing — arguably adds to our death total and undisputedly increases the burden upon our financially desperate people.

From a legislative perspective, there is obviously little we citizens can do but watch and wait; from a health perspective, we need to continue to be our own best friends. 

Stay safe.

If one intends to review this post, but has not yet read Part I (which is a couple of notes below), I would start there.

I would offer a final precept that might prove vital to Mr. Biden’s winning the White House this November:

Pigs Get Fat; Hogs Get Slaughtered.  On July 11, the New York Times ran a story I had been expecting and, frankly, dreading:  “Democrats Tell Biden to Go Big,” which reported that given Mr. Trump’s “slumping” poll numbers not only in swing states but in recently- or traditionally-conservative-leaning states such as Ohio, Georgia, Texas, Montana, and Kansas, Mr. Biden is facing increasing pressure within the Democratic Party, intent on a resounding renunciation of Trumpism, to “compete aggressively in more states,” “press his party’s advantage down the ballot,” and work “to install a generation of lawmakers who can cement Democratic control of Congress and help redraw legislative maps following this year’s census.” 

With the possible exception of Ohio, such sentiments are misguided nonsense.  Mr. Biden needs to resist this temptation.  This may be our last election based upon a predominantly two-party system (a premise obviously worthy of a future post) that until this century generally served us well for over one hundred years.  A campaign has limited time and resources.  In 2016, Democratic Presidential nominee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, apparently well ahead in the polls and anticipating that Mr. Trump would claim that her victory had been “rigged,” attempted to run up her Electoral College score to establish her legitimacy.  While never visiting Wisconsin, she diddled around in states like Georgia and Utah — states that any reasonable observer recognized that she was never going to win.  (It is a classic example of Mr. Trump’s bombast causing an opponent’s unforced error.) 

There are 538 Electoral College votes at issue in November.  If Mr. Trump or Mr. Biden wins exactly 270 Electoral College votes, he gets 4 years.  If the winner gets 400, he gets … four years.  If the winner gets 500, he gets … four years.  (All assuming, of course, that if Mr. Trump is elected, he doesn’t – as in effect Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have – declare himself President for Life.)  The candidate that musters 269 or fewer gets … ZERO years.  For the good of the nation, all that matters for Mr. Biden is getting in the White House.  While closely monitoring for any slippage in any of the states won by Ms. Clinton in 2016 (232 Electoral votes, if one includes the few votes denied her by those states’ “faithless” Electors), he needs to claim (assuming no “faithless electors”) any combination of 38 additional Electoral College votes from the six swing states listed in Part I:  Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16), Wisconsin (10), Florida (29), North Carolina (15), and Arizona (11) [and maybe Ohio (18), where Mr. Biden – perhaps boosted by the tacit support of former OH Gov. John Kasich — shows a steady if narrow lead and his traditional northern liberalism shouldn’t alarm persuadables].  As of the time this note is posted (while recognizing that these numbers vary daily), Mr. Biden’s leads in these six swing states have actually narrowed by an average of more than 1.5% from their respective late June and July crests – and he didn’t have that much of a lead in Arizona and North Carolina at his best.  I would assert that any decision by the Biden Campaign to broaden its efforts beyond the acknowledged swing states, perhaps Ohio, and any other 2016 Trump states in which polls show that he is sustaining a lead over Mr. Trump outside the margin of error (Nebraska?), is folly. 

Even the cautious might ultimately be tempted to suggest:  Wait until a couple of weeks before the election, and if Mr. Biden retains a commanding lead, then broaden the effort.  Two weeks before the 2016 election, national polls indicated that Ms. Clinton had a 12-point lead over President Trump — days before FBI Director James Comey announced that the Bureau was reopening its investigation into Ms. Clinton’s emails.  I would recommend that Mr. Biden run hard and narrowly right to the end.  As recently as a July 19 interview on Fox News Sunday, Mr. Trump refused to indicate he would concede the election if he lost.  I would submit that it is more important for Mr. Biden to achieve convincing margins in the requisite number of Electoral College states than it is to achieve narrow – and, thus, contestable – margins in a larger number of states.  Let the Lincoln Project and other groups of disaffected former Republicans make the case against Mr. Trump in heretofore conservative states.  There is one qualification to a narrow approach:  Mr. Biden should be willing to devote time to non-swing states in which polling indicates that his assistance might help the Democrats gain a U.S. Senate majority (e.g., Colorado and Maine).

A note:  The site I consult for the poll numbers I rattle off is Project FiveThirtyEight.  I like its ease of use; I assume it’s as accurate as any. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

As President Reagan indicated (reportedly to laughter, presumably rueful) in Rochester, NY, at a campaign rally on November 1, 1984:  “The polls [in which Mr. Reagan then held a substantial lead over Mr. Mondale] are scaring me to death … President Dewey [then-deceased former Republican Presidential nominee and NY Gov. Thomas Dewey, who in fact lost to President Truman in 1948 despite leading in pre-election polls] told me to tell you that isn’t true.”

Although Gov. Dewey is as hard to reach now as he was in 1984, if Mr. Biden needs any confirmation for the sentiments Mr. Reagan attributed to Mr. Dewey, Mr. Biden can always consult … Sec. Clinton.

As polls indicate that the lead of presumptive Democratic Party Presidential Nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden is widening over President Donald Trump and the President seems buffeted – at least outside the alt-right echo chamber – by a continuing proliferation of unfavorable news, Mr. Biden and his team are presumably plotting their final campaign strategy.  I would score their efforts since the former Vice President realistically secured the nomination – buttressed (in starkly political terms) by Mr. Trump’s grotesque mishandling of the COVID crisis – very high; they have maintained a relatively low profile and let Mr. Trump be his own worst enemy.  I suspect that they wish that continuing such a laissez faire approach will be sufficient to win the White House; I would submit that it will not, and that the race will tighten.  Accordingly, what follows are these pages’ prescriptions for Mr. Biden’s winning the presidency:

Stick to the Theme.  The most important [and shortest  ;)] first.  A projection of integrity, competence, stability, caring should be the overarching thrust of the campaign.  Even some voters who are not repulsed by Mr. Trump’s personality and conduct of the presidency have been exhausted by him.  In the same manner as a lawyer designs a trial strategy, Mr. Biden’s campaign should build toward the question he renders in his “closing argument” – i.e., his concluding remarks at the end of the first or last debate:  “Do you want four more years of this?”  (Let the voter fill in the “this.”)

Pick the woman most qualified to be president as running mate.  Along with Franklin Roosevelt’s selection of Harry Truman in 1944, Mr. Biden’s choice will perhaps be the most crucial selection of a running mate, from a substantive standpoint, in American history (and arguably the most crucial one politically, since the average American had little sense of Mr. Roosevelt’s failing health during the 1944 presidential campaign.)  Given his age, Mr. Biden must address the valid voter concern that he might not finish out his term, and he accordingly needs to select a running mate that the average voter can picture immediately effectively conducting the presidency.  I indicated in a note some weeks ago that that there is no candidate whose record will not contain some vulnerabilities, and that Mr. Biden might as well do his explaining on behalf of the running mate that he considers best equipped to serve as president.  Such a choice is good politics because it is consistent with Mr. Biden’s “brand,” and the current condition of our nation and the world demands that he do no less.  (Of the names being circulated, my preferred choice would be former U.S. National Security Adviser and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice.  Although certain to face renewed Republican criticism that she lied about aspects of the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, a Congressional Republican-led investigation found no evidence that she had intentionally misled the public regarding the raid’s particulars; she has managed a more demanding portfolio than any other suggested candidate of whom I’m aware; and she has presidential demeanor – seemingly making her a good debate matchup against Vice President Mike Pence, who can present reassuringly when one puts aside his sycophantic record.)

Keep to the Knitting.  Maintain a policy focus that will resonate with swing voters in the generally-accepted swing states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona.  The former Vice President should return continuously to Mr. Trump’s mishandling of the COVID crisis (at the time this is typed, seemingly out of control in Florida and Arizona), his use of chemical agents against peaceful protestors in Washington, D.C.’s Lafayette Square, his Administration’s current attack on the Affordable Care Act, and his failure to act upon intelligence of Russia’s placement of a bounty on American soldiers in Afghanistan.  Mr. Biden should stick to mainstream liberal domestic and foreign policies.  So far, he has successfully resisted pressures to embrace farther-left positions that will alienate centrists while maintaining the allegiance of most progressives (with U.S. VT Sen. Bernie Sanders, cognizant of the need to beat Mr. Trump, protecting Mr. Biden’s left flank).  The “Build Back Better” plan seems a meaningful substantive policy, while being a politically-effective overture to a segment of Mr. Trump’s supporters.  At the same time:  Don’t take the bait.  Except when specifically asked, Mr. Biden should ignore the President’s commutation of Roger Stone’s sentence, his seemingly overwhelmingly likely pardoning of Michael Flynn if Mr. Flynn’s conviction isn’t vacated, and Mr. Trump’s other illiberal acts.  All voters who are alarmed by Mr. Trump’s aberrant conduct of the presidency are already going to vote for Mr. Biden.  Mr. Trump wants to turn the discussion back to the Russia investigation, because it distracts the voter from his blatant shortcomings to an issue in which he has successfully convinced a large share of Americans that he was exonerated. 

You Don’t Get a Second Chance to Make a First Impression.  After months of Mr. Trump’s assertions that Mr. Biden is in cognitive decline, the onus on Mr. Biden to look sharp in his first debate against the President cannot be overstated.  While there is a temptation to compare the upcoming first debate to the first 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate – How will the challenger measure up? – I would suggest that the a closer parallel might be the second 1984 Reagan-Mondale debate, in which a popular President Ronald Reagan – who had appeared uncertain and diminished in his first debate with former Democratic Presidential nominee and Vice President Walter Mondale – reassured voters with a very sharp performance that arguably secured his second term.  Mr. Biden might not get a debate Mulligan.  He does, however, have the advantage that Mr. Trump’s debate approach – full out, “frontal assault” — can be readily predicted.  If advising the Biden Campaign, I would recommend that they enlist U.S. MA Sen. Elizabeth Warren – as vicious a debater as the President — to play Mr.Trump during debate preparation, and have her “let it rip.”

The last prescription, which seemingly forms a nuts-and-bolts bookend to the strategic first prescription, will appear in Part II.