As all who care are aware, recently the New York Times and Sienna published results of a poll taken from October 22 to November 3, 2023, of registered voters in the swing states Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  In a matchup between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, Mr. Biden trailed Mr. Trump by an average of 5 points in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  The outliers were Nevada – where the poll indicated that Mr. Biden trailed Mr. Trump by a whopping 11 points – and Wisconsin, where Mr. Biden was leading Mr. Trump by 2.  I actually have less faith in the accuracy of outliers than in the rest; it’s hard to believe that Mr. Biden is trailing by double digits in a state he won in 2020, and speaking as a Wisconsin resident, Mr. Trump fared better in the Badger State on Election Day in both 2016 and 2020 than preliminary polls indicated he would.  Averaging the two outliers together, I would venture that Mr. Biden is currently trailing Mr. Trump by about 5 points in all the polled swing states.  If one asserts that a majority of citizens will be concerned enough in the ballot box about preserving democracy or the emotive issue of abortion for Mr. Biden to overcome the apparent difference, I would counter:  the Times/Sienna poll shows Mr. Trump beating Mr. Biden by double digits on the Economy, the Israeli/Hamas conflict, National Security, and Immigration – the first three findings inexplicable to me, but it is what it is — so Mr. Biden’s relatively lesser overall deficit to Mr. Trump in these states arguably indicates that Mr. Biden’s advantages on democracy and women’s reproductive rights are already baked into the candidates’ top line numbers.

Given Mr. Biden’s effective – I would go so far as to say, save his decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, top-tier — performance in office, a reasonable observer in a vacuum would presumably find the poll results perplexing.  Given our real-world hyper-toxic environment and the virulent effectiveness of the alt-right propaganda machine, I confess that I didn’t find them much of a surprise, although — judging by the thinly-veiled hand wringing by liberal talking heads I’ve seen since they were published – they were apparently a shock among some liberal political professionals and pundits.

Hearkening back to President Abraham Lincoln’s 1858 remarks recently quoted in these pages, which he uttered in circumstances in some ways completely different on the surface from, while in other ways strikingly similar at their core to, those we face today:  it’s now tenably clear “where we are, and whither we are tending”; it’s time to “judge what to do, and how to do it [Emphasis Mr. Lincoln’s].”

Mr. Biden’s subjective challenge lies in a telling characteristic of the voters he needs to retain the presidency:  they are engaging in critical thinking.  His doddering bearing and concerns about his continued health for another six years is an aspect that even those favorably disposed toward him are weighing.  (I would suggest that those pointing out the relatively small difference in the ages of Messrs. Biden and Trump are missing a key psychological factor:  on Election Day 2024, of the two only Mr. Biden will have turned … 80.  Then Republican Party Presidential Nominee Ronald Reagan first challenged the 70 barrier 43 years ago, and even in an electorate that had thereafter become conditioned by Mr. Reagan’s age, Mr. Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were considered pretty old at 70 when they ran in 2016.)  At the same time, the President has apparently lost support among some demographics he will need – minorities and the young – due to their perception that he hasn’t done enough for them (which I would submit is unfair, given the closely divided Congress with which he has had to deal).  Open-minded citizens can be justifiably concerned about inflation, the southern border, or what have you, and those focusing on concrete issues rather than preserving democracy are apparently considering whether Mr. Trump might do better than Mr. Biden has done; although one may question their discernment, priorities, or approach, the point here is that they are thinking.  Mr. Biden should already have surrogates out to persuade and reassure these critical electoral segments.

Without wishing to be too cavalier, I would suggest that Mr. Trump’s supporters have willingly suspended their capacity for critical thought with regard to his candidacy.  Even if one wants to institute an American Apartheid, one might logically conclude that MAGA FL Gov. Ron DeSantis, while boring, has the same instincts as Mr. Trump but stirs less enmity, and thus arguably has a better chance to win swing state swing voters to win the general election.  Mr. Trump’s cult nevertheless clings to him.

Irish Poet William Butler Yeats seemingly summed up Messrs. Biden’s and Trump’s current relative positions in verses of “The Second Coming,” published in November, 1920:

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.”

Mr. Biden’s risk is erosion; his support is subject to apathy and doubt.  (His turnout will be boosted in Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania if, as I have seen reported, there are abortion rights measures on the 2024 ballot in these states.)  Mr. Trump’s challenge is addition; his supporters are an unbreakable bulwark, but those voters who detest him have such antipathy for him that he will never gain their support.  The issue is whether Mr. Biden’s support will erode in the swing states to the point that Mr. Trump’s militant support overtakes it.

In a note a while back suggesting what Mr. Biden should do to retain his office, I offered:

“ … [S]tick to the knitting.  … Recall that Mr. Biden entered the 2020 race with the avowed strategy of retaining all of the [Electoral College] votes that [Ms.] Clinton had won in 2016, and adding the EC votes of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin … He succeeded in that endeavor, while surprisingly (at least to me) winning Arizona and Georgia as well.  These latter two states gave Mr. Biden some breathing room against Mr. Trump’s subsequent seditious lies about election integrity, but weren’t numerically necessary to win the White House.  Mr. Biden and his team need to focus their efforts on the swing states they are most likely to win …”

Something I didn’t focus on then, but am now:  the effect of the 2020 Census.  On net, the states Mr. Biden won in 2020 have lost 3 Electoral College votes, while the states Mr. Trump won have correspondingly gained 3 Electoral College votes.  In 2020, it would have made no difference; Mr. Biden would have prevailed 303 – 235 rather than 306 – 232.  However, if in 2024 Mr. Biden were to lose Arizona (11) and Georgia (16) – potential outcomes which today, a handicapper has to take seriously – his margin shrinks to 276.  If he loses Nevada (6), it shrinks to 270 – literally the minimum.  There is no margin for error in a contest that seems destined to be determined by courts or partisan legislatures.

I’ll test neither my arithmetical expertise nor your patience by attempting to scope out all of the potential Electoral College outcomes (if I could do math, I might not have gone into law 😉 ).  That said, I suspect that if Archimedes, the “Father of Mathematics,” born in Sicily in 287 B.C., was here today and surveyed Mr. Biden’s challenge, he’d advise:  “Winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin is not enough.  Nevada, even if you hold it, is too small to make a difference.  You need a bigger buffer.”  Recall that of the seven states with the closest margins in 2020, only one was a Trump state:  Mr. Trump won North Carolina (15 Electoral College votes) by 1.4%.  The Times/Sienna poll did not include the candidates’ current standing in the Tar Heel State.  I am encouraged by reports that the Biden Campaign is starting to make significant effort in North Carolina.  I think the President needs North Carolina; other 2020 Trump states seem beyond his reach.

Finally, a note of frustration:  Mr. Biden and his team seemingly remain focused on trying to win the election by reminding voters about their accomplishments.  I’ve seen a recent report indicating that the Biden Team has thus far spent millions on ads touting its achievements, and only about one hundred thousand dollars on negative ads about Mr. Trump.  I’m just a retired Midwest blogger and they’re political pros, but if this report was accurate, their current strategy is political malpractice.  If they stick to it, Mr. Biden will lose.  It is beyond dispute that negative ads work; the Biden Campaign needs to place its overwhelming emphasis on pounding Mr. Trump in the swing states.  Its reported “emphasize the positive” strategy has brought to my mind the legendary Hall of Fame Major League Manager Casey Stengel, who, after winning seven World Championships and 10 pennants with the New York Yankees, took over the helm of the expansion New York Mets.  If Mr. Stengel was here today and reviewed the state of the Biden Campaign efforts to date, he’d moan as he did in the midst of the Mets’ 42-120 season in 1962:  “Can’t anyone here play this game?”

[Caution:  this Part II has become interminably long, such that it might — like liver, lutefisk, or lima beans — be best digested in small servings  😉 ]

Mr. Biden.  In the first part of this note, I suggested the strategies that former President Donald Trump might execute to (legally and validly) recapture the presidency; those that seem to me most suitable for Mr. Biden are many and more varied.  What is of great concern to me is that although the President and his team may recognize all of the eight steps set forth below, they don’t appear to be applying what I consider to be the appropriate respective emphasis on each.  From least important to most important:

Eighth — solicit the highly confidential agreement of specific prominent Republican surrogates to publicly support Mr. Biden (or, at a minimum, disown Mr. Trump) when the time is right.  It would be understood that any such understandings would only apply if Mr. Trump wins the Republican nomination.  As in 2020, the presidential election will be won or lost in the Republican suburbs of the major urban centers in the swing states.  The most important Republican surrogates to be solicited would be former President George W. Bush and former U.S. WY Rep. Liz Cheney.  These two arguably retain credibility with conservative independents and moderate Republicans.  (If Mr. Bush is as patriotic as he’s always claimed to be, it’s time for him to come out of his corner.)  The message these surrogates might express to this pivotal suburban segment would be simple:  “I don’t agree with President Biden on most domestic issues, but Trump is a danger to our republic.  I will not vote for Trump.  Given our choice in 2024, I’m going to vote for Mr. Biden, and I encourage you to follow me.  Now is the time to save our democratic way of life.  After this election, we can rebuild the Republican Party and start countering Democratic excesses with the right presidential candidate in 2028.”      

Seventh — trumpet the Administration’s accomplishments.  They are many, and impressive.  It doesn’t matter.  Mr. Biden should expend relatively lesser effort in this regard.  Those that appreciate what he’s achieved are already going to vote for him.  He will never convince brainwashed consumers of alt-right media that he’s done a good job.  [An August CBS/YouGov poll indicated that Mr. Trump’s supporters believe Mr. Trump more than their own family members (although, hopefully, not more than their mothers 🙂 )].  This is where the President’s good nature and his faith in the good sense of the vast majority of American electorate is dangerous.  I find it disconcerting that this seems to be the strategy that he and his team wish to emphasize.

Sixth – pray that the economy continues on a glide path to a “soft landing” without recession – i.e., that America’s unemployment rate remains low while inflation and interest rates decline.  From a political perspective, perception of the economy trumps statistics.  (Recall that former President Bill Clinton bested former President George H. W. Bush in 1992 in large part by arguing that he would be better than Mr. Bush at bringing America out of its recession; economists later determined that the recession Mr. Clinton decried concluded before Election Day in 1992.)  I’m not sure that a good economy helps Mr. Biden, but a bad economy certainly hurts him.  Right now, voters are understandably focusing on inflation, particularly gas and food prices, and interest rates.  Mr. Biden might be able to make a wedge issue out of high gas prices if the Saudis and the Russians attempt to jack oil prices in too obvious a bid to help Mr. Trump’s re-election, but speaking for those of us of different faiths who believe in the power of prayer, there may be relatively little Mr. Biden can do with regard to the economy except pray.

Fifth — make Vice President Kamala Harris the on-site leader of FEMA’s effort to rebuild Maui and Puerto Rico (still struggling after Hurricanes Irma and Maria) – and then cut all communications from those islands back to the mainland.  This is, of course, facetious, and not intended in any way to make light of the catastrophic loss that our people in these areas are suffering; it is to make the point that the relatively unfavorable public perception of Ms. Harris’ abilities hasn’t improved during the Biden Years (from which one might infer that the President doesn’t think any more highly of her qualifications than the general public; although in fairness, if he does believe she is of presidential timber, he’s given her no real opportunity to prove it).  Recently, MSNBC’s Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough dismissed concerns that Ms. Harris might be a drag on Mr. Biden’s re-election prospects by declaring to the effect, “No one votes in a presidential election based upon the vice presidential candidates.”  Perhaps true (there have been a few presidential races in this century that might make one wonder); but nobody’s ever been asked to vote for an 82-year-old presidential candidate before, either.  Speaking in rankest political terms, the Vice President was an asset in 2020 in the wake of George Floyd’s murder but is now, fairly or unfairly, a political millstone for an aged President that he cannot jettison for fear of offending his constituency of color.  He must keep her out of sight except for safe stops in heavily progressive areas.

Fourth – To the extent he can – recognizing that there are significant limits to what he can do in this regard in this media age — Mr. Biden needs to restrict his movement in front of video cameras as zealously and as effectively as he compensates for his stutter.  Four score and seven years ago (yes, really; you can do the math 😉 ), Americans first re-elected a president they were completely unaware couldn’t walk; today — in perhaps the most patently obvious statement ever entered in these pages — visuals count.  Although one of my dictionaries defines “doddering” as “feeble-minded from age,” the majority define the word entirely in terms of movement, such as:  “Moving in a feeble or unsteady way, especially because of old age.”  It is obvious that Mr. Biden “dodders” in the physical sense.  Recently, he hosted a Camp David summit with the leaders of Japan and South Korea – nations with traditionally deep acrimony toward each other, but brought together by the President’s cajoling about their overriding concerns about China.  It was a foreign policy tour de force by Mr. Biden.  But what we saw as the President greeted his allies was a man clearly unsteady on his feet between two younger, more physically assured men.  That was the visceral impression even I was left with, although because of my interest in foreign policy I probably appreciated more than the average voter the mental dexterity it had required to bring the summit about.  I would supplement the conscious effort to limit Mr. Biden’s movement in front of cameras with ads containing video depicting him moving with assurance (he does at times) and flashing still pictures of him doing his job at a pace that leaves the viewer with the impression of movement.

Third – stick to the knitting.  Winning the presidency is about winning 270 Electoral College (“EC”) votes.  You don’t get to stay if you get less; they don’t let you stay longer if you get more.  Recall that Mr. Biden entered the 2020 race with the avowed strategy of retaining all of the EC votes that former U.S. Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, and adding the EC votes of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin – states Ms. Clinton had been expected to win, but had lost.  He succeeded in that endeavor, while surprisingly (at least to me) winning Arizona and Georgia as well.  These latter two states gave Mr. Biden some breathing room against Mr. Trump’s subsequent seditious lies about election integrity, but weren’t numerically necessary to win the White House.  Mr. Biden and his team need to focus their efforts on the swing states they are most likely to win, and on the electoral segments within those states from which they need significant margins.  Mr. Biden is perhaps our last American politician whom most voters find generally likeable even if they question his vitality, but he doesn’t inspire excitement.  I was more than a little unnerved to recently hear a young black woman express disappointment with Mr. Biden’s performance in the PBS NewsHour series, “America at a Crossroads.”  If the African American community doesn’t enthusiastically support Mr. Biden in 2024, he will lose.  The Biden Campaign needs to employ effective surrogates among its core constituencies to get out the vote.  Former President Barack Obama will help with the African American community (although query whether he has as much credibility with younger as he does with older blacks) and U.S. VT Sen. Bernie Sanders will help with progressives, but the Biden team must find surrogates to effectively stoke enthusiasm among pro-choice, various Latino communities (Latinos are not a monolithic whole), Jewish groups, etc., etc.       

Second – Let MAGAs be MAGAs.  Wisconsin state Republican MAGAs could well seek to impeach a state supreme court justice who was elected by a margin of over 10% to do what they wish to thwart.  In Tennessee, MAGAs seemingly continue to try to freeze out certain black legislators for no reason other than that they’re black and they have the temerity to “talk back.”  U.S. AL Sen. Tommy Tuberville will seemingly continue in his quest to block military promotions over cultural issues.  As this is posted, it appears that Congressional MAGAs will force a government shutdown over the budget.  Inevitably, Congressional MAGAs will seek to limit funding to Ukraine.  Congressional MAGAs are starting an impeachment inquiry into Mr. Biden seemingly without appreciable evidence although he will never be convicted in the Senate and despite the fact that both Mr. Clinton’s and Mr. Trump’s approval ratings went up after they were impeached.  (They say that no president wants to be impeached; while I can see where Mr. Biden would prefer to avoid the distraction such a proceeding would entail, if he indeed did not use his Vice Presidential office to favor his son, he should welcome an impeachment effort from a political standpoint.)  I can’t even imagine all the bizarre ways that MAGAs will act over the next 14 months to pander to their base while alienating all rational voters, so the best thing that Mr. Biden and his team can do in this regard is … get out of their way 🙂 .

First and Foremost – Start pounding Mr. Trump with negative ads now, and keep it up until Election Day.  Those of us with legal backgrounds are well aware of court decisions in which the judge would comment about a legal point:  “It is so well settled that it needs no citation [of supporting authority].”  What is so well settled in the political sphere that it needs no explanation:  Negative Ads Work. The Biden Campaign should stay away from Mr. Trump’s criminal indictments – such emphasis will backfire if he’s acquitted – because they don’t need them.  Show Mr. Trump urging his supporters to go to the Capitol on January 6, 2021, with footage of the ensuing riot.  Show Mr. Trump’s Truth Social post in which he called for the termination of the Constitution with regard to the 2020 presidential election.  Show his comments about pardoning some of the rioters who have been convicted.  Show that he continues to claim that he won in 2020.  Show Mr. Trump’s kind words about Russian President Vladimir Putin, accompanied by footage of the destruction Mr. Putin has wreaked upon Ukraine.  Show his 2016 campaign pledge to appoint judges that would overturn Roe v. Wade – and what his appointments have brought about.  These are simply the first to mind; there is so much material.  Mr. Biden and his team seem focused on reminding voters about what they’ve done; they need to place their overwhelming emphasis on reminding voters what Mr. Trump has done.

One might argue that it would be wise for the Biden Campaign to wait until Mr. Trump secures, in fact if not formally, the Republican nomination before it begins such attacks; what if another Republican wins the nomination?  While such is an understandable concern, I’d take the risk.  The Republican field is too wide, and Mr. Trump’s core support is too strong.  It hasn’t withered – has, indeed, strengthened – in the wake of his many indictments.  The race is about persuading hesitant Democrats, conservative independents and moderate Republicans that Mr. Trump cannot be allowed back in the White House.  Start pounding him now.

Not long ago, I wrote a post in which I stated my strong belief that we need to be alert to and guard against MAGA illiberal machinations related to the 2024 presidential election.  I believe just as strongly that if we exert as much effort to protect our democracy as MAGAs will do to destroy it, we will preserve our way of life; that enough of our conservative independents and moderate Republican citizens will place greater store on safeguarding our republic than on their unease about progressive excesses.  It’s our game to win – but every bit as crucially, it is Mr. Trump’s and MAGAs’ game to lose.  Let them lose it.  Hopefully, Mr. Biden and his team will execute the appropriate strategies to both win the necessary votes and safeguard the integrity of our electoral processes.

To conclude with the only pet saying of Mr. Trump that I genuinely appreciate:  We’ll see what happens.

[I write more about politics and less about what I consider traditional substantive policy issues than I ever imagined when I began entering these posts.  The obviously illiberal aims of former President Donald Trump and MAGAism have made our politics the battleground upon which the life of American democracy – which I would submit surpasses even climate change, artificial intelligence, and Chinese and Russian aggression as the most vital substantive policy challenge of our time – will be won or lost.] 

I concluded my 2022 entries in these pages by declaring that I considered President Joe Biden, at the midpoint of his term, the most consequential American president we have had since Franklin Roosevelt.  At the same time, I noted the significant unease about his age, even among our friends who were certain to vote for the President if he ran again, and queried how Mr. Biden would electorally fare if he was running against a younger Republican opponent not so overtly autocratically toxic as former President Donald Trump. 

I concluded by submitting that the best way for Mr. Biden to secure what he had achieved was by stepping aside for another Democrat better positioned to defend his advances.

Over a year ago, I declared in a different post that the Democrats’ primary challenge to retaining the White House in 2024 was Vice President Kamala Harris; that particularly because of the President’s advanced years, the widespread doubts – even among some progressives – about Ms. Harris’ readiness for the presidency made her “a political liability that could sink Mr. Biden even against Mr. Trump, and an albatross that he cannot afford against any other Republican presidential nominee.”

I concluded that entry by submitting that if the President was serious about running for re-election, I hoped that his closest aide would then soon be advising Ms. Harris that for personal reasons and with great regret, she would be advising Mr. Biden to name someone else to run with him in 2024.

Although I am confident that the President and his team are loyal followers of these pages 😉 , they somehow missed those posts.  At present, progressive pundits are wringing their hands about voters’ evident concerns about Mr. Biden’s age, and some clips I’ve seen make it seem as though former SC Gov. Nikki Haley spends more time talking about Ms. Harris than she does Mr. Biden.  A recent Wall Street Journal poll has Messrs. Biden and Trump tied at 46%, with 8% remaining undecided.

One can bemoan the fact that 46% of our citizens are open to voting for a man who, although he remains entitled to the presumption of innocence with regard to the 91 felony counts he now faces, has manifested undoubted authoritarian tendencies.  One can perhaps rue the fact that Mr. Biden did not choose to step aside when he could have.  (Last week a close friend sent me a recent article in which a pundit was still calling for Mr. Biden to step aside.  My reaction:  while U.S. Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren might be able to rapidly pull together enough of their 2020 campaign organizations to make 2024 runs, from a practical standpoint, they’re already far behind where they’d need to be, and the bad feelings that would inevitably erupt during the ensuing internecine free-for-all would probably hand Mr. Trump the White House; it’s too late.)  We are where we are.  We have no choice but to continue to win presidential elections against the autocratic forces we face until hopefully, at some point, the anarchic spell gripping so many of our citizens breaks. 

I would submit that Messrs. Biden’s and Trump’s respective campaign strategies for victory are fairly clear.  Mr. Trump is executing upon his; hopefully, Mr. Biden, despite what I consider some early missteps, will do the same.  Here we go.

Mr. Trump.  In some respects, the former president has the easier go of it.  He has to draw to an inside straight as he did in 2016.  Putting aside the illiberal machinations that MAGA forces will undoubtedly attempt to execute on his behalf in 2024, to actually legally win he needs but three strategies:

First, Mr. Trump’s trials are his campaign.  Immediately below, you find a link to an August 28, 2023, article by New Republic Editor Michael Tomasky, entitled, “Trump’s Trials Don’t Interrupt His Campaign – They Are His Campaign” – one of the hundreds of pieces I’ve read over the years that have made me wish I was bright enough to have written.  In it, Mr. Tomasky writes in part:

“Conventional wisdom, again, has held that once Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and others in his crime family have to abandon the theater of the media for the sober confines of the courtroom, they will have to stop spouting these lies, and the facts will swallow them.  Again, this is true to some extent … [b]ut it also fails to understand how the fascist bond between leader and people works. … [Mr. Trump’s] campaign will be largely about himself and his martyrdom for his people. … [I]t will be what he and his followers want.  Biden and his supporters want an election about empirical facts.  Trump and his loyalists want an election about fascist truth.”  Mr. Trump has been – there is no other word for it – a genius at making his supporters viscerally feel that an attack on him is an attack on them.

https://newrepublic.com/article/175212/trumps-trials-campaign-2024-maga

Second, Mr. Trump needs to continue to look vital.  No matter how much antipathy his opponents may have for him, his animal charisma is undeniable.  At 77, he is probably completely drained after a rally, but while he’s on stage, he’s generally energized, and moves much younger and lighter than he is.  We all know his hair is sparser than it appears and that the blond hair color and orange skin tone come out of bottles, but the fact remains that these are what we see – not an old man’s thinning white hair and drawn skin.  His impeccable tailoring hides the 50+ pounds he has in excess of the 215 reported at his Fulton County booking.  He appears robust – and thus, draws a sharp visual contrast to Mr. Biden.

Finally, Mr. Trump still probably loses to Mr. Biden unless he draws the right card to win over the majority of the Wall Street Journal’s poll’s 8% undecided, who are otherwise presumably more likely to break for Mr. Biden.  I can think of several:  a third party candidacy that draws from Mr. Biden voters who are leery about the President but cannot countenance voting for Mr. Trump; an obvious physical reversal for Mr. Biden – such as a “freeze” like those unfortunately now afflicting Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell; actual evidence that Mr. Biden used his Vice Presidential position to benefit his son, Hunter; or Mr. Trump’s acquittal(s) in whatever criminal trials he faces before Election Day – which Mr. Trump will proclaim as exoneration and proof of Democratic political persecutions.

The strategies that I would suggest that Mr. Biden needs to employ to retain the White House are varied and greater in number; rather than further test your perseverance, these are best left to Part II.

First, full disclosure:  We won’t be able to watch the first Republican Party presidential debate this Wednesday.  Quite a while back, we opted to go to a reduced cable station package, and elected not to include Fox News because I saw no reason to put such an unnecessary strain on my aging heart 😉 .  (I’m shocked that the Republican National Committee hasn’t offered me a seat in the Milwaukee debate hall; after all, I am just down the road 🙂 ).  That said, a few pre-game observations (based on the understanding that even candidates refusing to pledge to support whomever is ultimately the GOP nominee will be allowed to participate):

The easiest first:  former President Donald Trump is obviously making the wise strategic move to skip the debate.  Aside from the most important point – he would almost certainly say something that could be used to incriminate him in one of his upcoming criminal trials – in skipping the debate he’s avoiding a clash with former NJ Gov. Chris Christie, who would be gunning for him (please excuse the old reference) and is even better at slugging it out than Mr. Trump is.  (Mr. Christie has assumed the mantle of Overt Trump Adversary that I have previously indicated in these pages that I thought former U.S. WY Rep. Liz Cheney might play.)  At the same time, even though Mr. Trump will not be on the stage, my guess is that he will still sustain some political damage.  Mr. Christie is going to repeatedly call the former president a coward for not showing up – at least when he’s not calling Mr. Trump a liar, a loser, and a traitor.  This will probably shave no more than a point off Mr. Trump’s core Republican support, but I’ll venture that it may have a significant impact upon the moderate conservatives tuning in who are tired of Mr. Trump.  These citizens may never vote for President Joe Biden, but Mr. Christie’s verbal assaults will be the first in a continuing barrage that may start to dampen these moderate conservatives’ willingness to turn out for Mr. Trump in November if he is the GOP nominee.

FL Gov. Ron DeSantis has clearly been employing what I will call the “Rotting Redwood” strategy.  By this time, Mr. DeSantis and his advisors must realize that he can’t beat Mr. Trump, one-on-one; they are trying to “hang around” so that if the prosecution worms eating at Mr. Trump, now seemingly an impregnable political redwood, suddenly cause him to topple over, Mr. DeSantis, as the tallest sapling, will be in position to scoop up the nomination.  The trouble with this strategy is:  Mr. DeSantis is boring.  The only thing worse than an autocrat is a boring autocrat.  Everyone on that stage is going to be attacking him, because they are all aware that their only hope for the nomination is to be “the best of the rest.”  Although Mr. DeSantis handily beat former FL Gov. Charlie Christ to retain his governorship in 2022, I saw clips of their debate in which Mr. DeSantis simply froze when challenged by Mr. Crist in some pretty predictable areas.  Up against Mr. Christie and former SC Gov. Nikki Haley – who also knows how to throw a punch, as long as Mr. Trump is not the target – Mr. DeSantis has the most to gain or lose.  If he shines, he remains the Great Anybody But Trump Hope.  If he stumbles – and thereafter falls to third or fourth among Republican candidates – he’s finished.  Recall that Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign started to slide when then-U.S. HI Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (put aside what we’ve since learned about Ms. Gabbard) hit Ms. Harris during a candidate debate with questions about Ms. Harris’ record as San Francisco District Attorney that Ms. Harris simply froze on.

Ms. Haley and U.S. SC Sen. Tim Scott will be engaging in a fascinating exchange.  Both have reportedly stirred interest among Iowans for the first Republican caucus, and each needs to sidle past Mr. DeSantis, but both will have to use some of their air time taking shots – perhaps veiled – at the other (if not this week, soon); each is undoubtedly aware that whoever loses to the other in their home state South Carolina primary will be effectively eliminated, no matter what Mr. Trump’s situation is.  Their candidacies also raise a question I have, which I’ve not heard spoken of elsewhere:  Is the Republican Party ready to award its presidential nomination to a person of color?  I have always felt that if the late U.S. Gen. Colin Powell had run for the Republican nomination in 2000, he would have beaten former President George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination and former Vice President Al Gore for the presidency, and we’d have a much different – and much better – world today; but he didn’t, we don’t, and the Republican party is chasms from where it was in 2000.  If Ms. Haley or Mr. Scott secure the nomination, I’m sure Republican stalwarts would vote for either rather than a despised, diabolical, demented, Godless, rabidly progressive crime boss like Mr. Biden 😉 , but  I just don’t see the party nominating a black man or an Asian woman when there are plenty of good ol’ white men available.  

Which brings us to the third candidate of color:  Vivek Ramaswamy.  Of all the candidates on stage – save, perhaps, Mr. Christie — I will most miss seeing him.  If my Twitter feed – a highly, highly unreliable source — is to be believed, Mr. Ramaswamy seems to believe that there is a path to the nomination for a person of color, as long as s/he is willing to out-fascist Messrs. Trump and DeSantis.  I’d start with an open mind and see whether he actually voices some of the positions that I’ve seen attributed to him.  Alas, an opportunity which will be sacrificed to protect my cardiovascular system.   

Whether or not you agree with their policy views, former Vice President Mike Pence and former AR Gov. Asa Hutchinson are good men who have proven themselves determined to safeguard our republic.  I fear that they’re too mild to stand out in this field.

Apparently, ND Gov. Doug Burgum will also be on stage.  I’ve seen clips of Mr. Burgum, and he might be plain-spoken and sensible – as U.S. CO Sen. Michael Bennet was an interesting, plain-spoken and sensible Democratic presidential candidate in 2020 – but it’s hard to see how Mr. Burgum is doing anything but running for the Republican Vice Presidential nomination.

My greatest fear about this debate is substantive.  While our citizens’ respective positions on certain issues – the best course for American democracy and women’s abortion rights, to name two – are fairly solidified, their foreign policy preferences are always more fluid.  Recall how a few 2020 Democratic candidates’ very expansive positions on southern border immigration drove the whole party’s position further left than the country was as a whole.  I am deeply concerned that any Republican candidates’ dramatic isolationist declarations could ultimately significantly weaken Republican – and thus American – support for Ukraine.  We as a world can’t afford that.

Stay tuned – if you’re able  🙂 .  

As the furor mounts around the grand jury’s recent indictment of former President Donald Trump for his alleged role in an insurrection-related conspiracy, I would suggest that those focused on whether he will be found guilty are in a sense chasing a red herring.  As long as the former President remains the clear frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, the most important question facing our citizens with regard to Mr. Trump – since he currently holds no office, has no federal power — is how what he is either alleged to have done or admits that he did in the past reflects upon his fitness to be President of the United States in the future. 

Start with the indisputable fact about the 2020 election results, repeated ad nauseam here and elsewhere:  Mr. Trump and his acolytes lost every significant lawsuit (many decided by Republican judges who voted for Mr. Trump) challenging the election results (many reported by Republican election officials who voted for Mr. Trump) in the states that determined the election’s outcome.  As the grand jury succinctly summarized in the first paragraph of its indictment: “The Defendant lost the 2020 presidential election.”

I will venture that the fate of Mr. Trump’s 2024 presidential candidacy will rest not upon the diehard opposition of Democrats or other voters unalterably opposed to him, nor upon the rabid allegiance of the voters slavishly dedicated to him, but upon those voters uneasy about President Joe Biden – his age, the economy, whatever – who are seemingly willing to entertain the notion of voting for Mr. Trump.  I would suggest that there are only three conclusions regarding Mr. Trump’s fitness for office – two of them actually urged by Mr. Trump’s defenders – that one can draw from the insurrection-related charges Mr. Trump now faces:

Door No. 1:  The Criminal Door.  Mr. Trump knowingly engaged in a conspiracy to steal the presidency and overturn our democracy. 

Door No. 2:  The Free Speech Door.  All Mr. Trump did was falsely declare that he won the election.  Such false assertions, even if they were made knowingly, are protected by the First Amendment.

Door No. 3:  The Witless Door.  Mr. Trump really believed that he had won the election, and thus, he was neither conspiring to overturn our democracy nor knowingly misleading his supporters.

I would offer this to those uncommitted citizens open to voting for Mr. Trump:  Put aside whether he’s found guilty or beats the wrap, a villain or a martyr.  Think about Mr. Trump purely as a candidate, and … pick any door.  Either he’s a traitor … or a liar … or a delusional fool unable to distinguish reality from fantasy.  Whichever door you pick:  Is this a person who should be … President of the United States?