In 1949, George Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four to warn of the dangers of totalitarian governments — the sort that he saw cropping up in Spain and Russia during that period. He wrote of a harsh world where truth becomes fungible. The all-powerful, all-seeing Big Brother controls everything. Thought police weed out dissension. Facts and history are altered to meet the needs of the party in power.

Little did Orwell know he might be describing the United States in the second decade of the 21st century.

Over the course of the past year, the Republican party has chosen to downplay the events of January 6. A recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found about two-thirds of Republicans viewed the attack as not violent or only somewhat violent. Yet overall, about two-thirds of Americans described the day as violent or very violent.

Immediately after January 6, Republican leaders denounced the insurrection. On January 19th, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said, “The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the President and other powerful people, and they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like.” House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy said, “The President bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump.”

But before long, the back-pedaling began. The landscape of reality for Republicans quickly began to change. Impeachment efforts were blocked. So were attempts to establish a bi-partisan commission to investigate the attack. McCarthy is now refusing to testify before the January 6 commission, despite previously having agreed to do so.

Throughout 2021, Republican members of Congress downplayed the events of January 6. For example, Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde (R) characterized the attack as a “normal tourist visit.” And now the Big Lie — the claim of a stolen election — continues to gain traction. Of course, the former President is beating the drum the loudest. But plenty of others are joining the parade.

Republican legislatures are working hard to limit voting rights, all under the guise of preventing another “stolen” election. According to a recent Washington Post-University of Maryland poll, 30 percent of Americans say there is solid evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election. Among Trump supporters, 69 percent say Biden’s election was not legitimate. Numerous court cases and state election audits have proven otherwise.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell dives deep into the nature of truth and how a party in power can change it. A substitute language, Newspeak, is created to stamp out the truth of what is happening.

“There is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. The keyword here is BLACKWHITE. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to BELIEVE that black is white, and more, to KNOW that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. “

Orwell saw a society in which the party was all-powerful. History was altered to support that.

“…the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it… All the beliefs, habits, tastes, emotions, mental attitudes that characterize our time are really designed to sustain the mystique of the Party and prevent the true nature of present-day society from being perceived.”

In a Washington Post opinion piece, Ellie Silverman notes the deep divides in America. She cites remarks by Cassie Miller of the Southern Poverty Law Center: “It suggests that we’ve actually moved beyond just partisanship. Americans are living in two wildly different realities and are viewing each other increasingly as enemies that they have to contend with.”

The bending of truth is nothing new to Trump world. Think back to remarks by Counselor to the President, Kellyanne Conway, defending false statements about Trump’s inaugural crowd. She termed the lies “alternative facts.”

One would think the blatant alteration of facts would backfire. But it doesn’t. The facts don’t matter. It’s the emotion that counts. In a Washington Post essay, Philip Bump uses as example NPR host Steve Inskeep’s challenge to Trump regarding the audit of the vote in Arizona.

“Put succinctly, you can’t combat irrationality with reason.
When Trump defended his position by mentioning the vote result in Arizona, Inskeep pointed out that the partisan review of ballots in that state’s Maricopa County had not changed the actual result.
To a rational person, this is damning: Trump’s allies pushed for an “audit,” got one, and Trump still lost. How can you rebut that? But the point of the audit was always to codify doubt. The audit accomplished what it was intended to accomplish: Give Trump and his allies something full of “questions” to which he could point as evidence that something sketchy happened.”

Codify doubt. Create confusion. Fuel conspiracy theory. That’s the real purpose of alternative facts. This blurring of reality happens at all levels — think local school boards, social media, conversations around the family table. And now, the Republican National Committee has cast the violent January 6 insurrection as “legitimate political discourse.”

Thomas Friedman recently wrote in The New York Times about the crisis we now face. He fears we are headed for a very dark place because once “there is no more truth, only versions, and no more trust, only polarization — getting them back is almost impossible.”

Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four did not end well for its protagonist, Winston Smith. Let’s hope our ending is better.

(Updated February 8. 2022)

The post The truth is expendable appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I’m a glutton for punishment. From time to time, I dip into Donald Trump’s @realDonaldTrump Twitter feed just to see what kind of insanity is on the menu. Recently, it seems like every time I did, there was a rash of rage about the election he lost and how unfair the world is to him.

How bad was Trump’s obsession with his election loss? Mother Jones just published a revealing tally of all his tweets since election day and the numbers are mind-boggling. Not including re-tweets, from November 3 to December 16, Trump posted 506 original tweets about his lost election. There are probably about half that many more re-tweet postings. In a recent sampling, about half of Trump’s election-related postings were flagged by Twitter as being factually disputed. A glance at the chart below paints the picture.

Contrast those 500 plus election fraud tweets to the mere 13 he has posted about the virus that has cost more than 300,000 American lives. No tweets were posted about the COVID-19 death toll.  There were only 32 tweets about the vaccine that we so desperately need.

I guess the man has his priorities, but they’re likely different than yours or mine.

The post Trump’s obsession with grievance appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The 2020 Democratic pre-primary debates are about to begin, and I think they are a terrible idea. Democrats have an amazing, deep bench of highly qualified, intelligent candidates for President. We should celebrate them—all of them, and their ideas—not turn them against one another in a prime-time circular firing squad.

Debates are designed to be confrontational. There’s score keeping. There’s grandstanding. There are winners and losers. With a field this qualified—this early in the game—that’s not a smart approach. Rather than rushing to winnow down the crowd, the Democratic party should be showcasing the range of smart, progressive, practical, and beneficial policies and programs that these candidates stand behind.

So, here’s an idea. Instead of a dozen or more candidates standing stiffly behind podiums, trying to think up snappy comebacks or memorable bumper-sticker lines in the 30-seconds they have to speak, let’s do something completely different. Let’s ditch the network correspondents and their gotcha questions, the timers, the flashing lights, the podiums, the audience woo-woo, and the win/lose format. Instead, sit them down at a roundtable and let them brainstorm—collaboratively—the big issues facing this country. Give everyone at the table a chance to offer constructive input. Show the country that discussion—rather than debate—and mutual respect—rather than competition—can create the solutions that we desperately need. Maybe offer a series of these roundtable brainstorming sessions, each focused on one or two issues. I’d like to hear what each of these candidates would say, especially if the idea is to be collaborative, not self-promoting.  What a way to underscore the differences between the Republican Party’s obstructive, confrontational and downright nasty way of “governing,” and a Democratic [capital and small d], cooperative, good-of-the-country attitude. Publicly brainstorming the big issues could show the country–dare I say inspire us?–to see what could be done when people think big, think smart and think together.

We are at a dangerous moment in the run-up to the 2020 Presidential election. We’ve hardly even met some of the Democratic contenders, and the party “leadership” is already trying to narrow the field to a few favorites. Sure, culling the field could focus the almighty fundraising efforts and possibly create the non-diluted groundswell for a single candidate that would make things go more smoothly for the Democratic party apparatus. But in my opinion, that’s a mistake.

We know who the conventional “front runners” are (based on the destructive fundraising race and on far-too-early-to-be-credible polling). But things can change, and the lesser-known candidates have barely had a chance to introduce themselves. Let’s slow this thing down, and think beyond the way it’s always been done. The person currently occupying the White House has built his presidency on breaking all the rules. Maybe the Democrats could think about shaking things up a bit, too. But in a good way.

The post Democratic debates? How about something completely different this time appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s January of 2021 and in spite of a hard fought challenge from incumbent President Donald Trump, Democrats have managed to win the presidency (it was a modest victory, Democrats won Arizona and flipped Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Iowa but still lost Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina). They also netted a few house seats and fought the GOP to a 50-50 draw in the Senate (after a contentious recount in Alabama, Doug Jones was able to be re-elected by a 420 vote margin aided in no small part by a strong 3rd party showing by Roy Moore). But depending on who was elected President, we might still be looking at more campaign still. There are several incumbent office holders running for the White House and if any of them were victorious that would create a vacancy which would need to be filled, so let’s explore what could happen if certain candidates were elected to the Presidency (or Vice-Presidency).

Michael Bennet (US Senator from Colorado)

Bennet had been serving in the US Senate since 2009, when he was appointed by then Gov. Bill Ritter to replace Ken Salazar, who was selected by President Obama to be his Secretary of the Interior. Bennet was elected in his own right in 2010 and re-elected in 2016. It’s unlikely that Bennet will win the Democratic nomination but not impossible. In a 2016 exit interview with the New Yorker, President Barack Obama name-checked Bennet when discussing gifted politicians who could be the future of the party (he also mentioned fellow contenders Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg).

If Bennet were elected President, Gov. Jared Polis would appoint a successor who would serve until the end of Bennet’s term (which would be 2022). The front-runner for that position would be Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, who was elected in 2018 defeating the Republican incumbent. She would be 36 years old in 2021, making her the youngest woman to ever serve in the US Senate, if appointed. That’s if she isn’t already elected in 2020. Keeping the seat might prove more difficult, as midterm elections have proven unkind to whatever party holds the White House, even if Colorado is trending more blue than purple.

Cory Booker (US Senator from New Jersey)

New Jersey is one of the few states in the country that allows candidates to run for President as well as re-election to their current office. So Booker could potentially choose to run both for re-election to the US Senate and the White House. Booker is also an underdog and has not yet seen his poll numbers rise from the mid-single digits. Despite sharing a number of similarities with Pete Buttigieg (Booker was mayor of Newark for 7 years and is also multi-lingual) has not received the same media darling treatment. It seems unlikely now, but Booker could certainly manage to win the nomination.

If Booker were elected President, Gov. Phil Murphy would appoint a replacement who would serve until a special election in November of that year. It’s unclear who Gov. Murphy would choose to succeed Booker, but one possibility is the Governor may choose himself. Gov. Murphy could appoint a ,such as his chief of staff, and then run for the seat himself instead of re-election as Governor. It wouldn’t be without precedentz: When Sen. Robert Byrd died, then-Gov. Joe Manchin appointed his chief legal counsel to temporarily hold the West Virginia senate seat so he could compete for it himself.

Bill de Blasio (Mayor of New York City)

If in every election ended with superlatives for candidates like “most prepared” or “most charisma” or “best hair”, de Blasio would receive the “windmill prize” for running the most Quixotic campaign of 2020. Which is saying quite a lot because we’ve got some real soon to be also-rans running at the moment. Most New Yorkers don’t even like de Blasio, so it’s hard to imagine how he could convince a primary electorate with over a dozen more viable candidates. Of course in defense of de Blasio, Donald Trump has literally never achieved majority support from voter,s yet still vanquished 17 Republicans and Hillary Clinton, proving that if you’ve got the message for the moment anything is possible.

If de Blasio were elected President, the Public Advocate would become mayor. The current holder of that office is Jumaane Williams who ,was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America when he unsuccessfully ran for Lt. Gov in 2018. This would mark a pretty big leftward shift in New York politics that might face significant pushback from the party establishmen,t especially since the next election would be just 10 months into Williams’ term.

Kirsten Gillibrand (US Senator from New York)

If Corey Booker’s polling performance has been somewhat underwhelming, Kirsten Gillibrand’s has been downright anemic. In many polls Gillibrand polls at 0% and others she polls at 1%, which is hard to explain, considering she represents one of the largest states in the nation and has the most anti-Trump voting record in the Senate. There are some Democrats who don’t support Gillibrand because of the Al Franken debacle in 2017, but one would assume Gillibrand would find a natural constituency among women in the part,y especially those focused on issues related to the #MeToo movement. However, that support has yet to present itself, but with so many candidates it’s still possible for Gillibrand to make headway.

If Gillibrand were elected President, Gov. Cuomo would make an appointment, who would serve until a special election in November of that year. There is a deep bench of candidates for possible appointment, including Chelsea Clinton, who seems to have an interest in public office, Caroline Kennedy, who was almost appointed to replace Hillary Clinton in 2009, and of course Gov. Cuomo may want the seat himself, as opposed to a 4th term as Governor. Regardless, that appointee would serve until 2024. 

Kamala Harris (US Senator from California)

If anyone on this list is going to be, it’s probably going to be Kamala Harris. Thinking about “What If” with many other these other candidates is a purely academic exercise, because they probably won’t be President. I would be somewhat surprised if Harris was not the nominee. Her politics are not necessarily my ,but her election would just seem like the natural progression of an increasingly progressive, coastal, and diverse Democratic Party. According to Nate Silver, Harris probably also has the most political upside as it relates to creating a base. Of course nothing is guaranteed, sometimes the seemingly obvious choice never really catches on with voters no matter how many times the media says they should (see Marco Rubio in 2016). Assuming the field isn’t steamrolled by former Vice President Joe Biden, Harris could be the front runner.

If Harris were elected President, Gov. Gavin Newsom would make an appointment, who would serve until at least the end of her term in 2022. California is full of Democrats, and the field is wide open for possible replacements.

• Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles
• Kevin de Leon, candidate for US Senate in 2018
• Attorney General Xavier Becerra
• George Clooney
• Ro Khanna
• Katie Hill
• Ted Lieu
• Mayor Sam Liccardo of San Jose
• Mayor London Breed of San Francisco
• Senator Barbara Boxer (As a caretaker)
  

Amy Klobuchar (US Senator from Minnesota)

Amy Klobuchar is probably not going to be President. Her fundraising has been anemic (40% was senate campaign transfers), her polling has been unimpressive, and she is attempting to appeal to a general election audience which is much more moderate than a Democratic primary. Perhaps if Joe Biden and a dozen others weren’t running,she’d be formidable, but a number of stories relating to her treatment of staff and consuming salad with combs probably have damaged her campaign beyond repair. However Klobuchar has proven herself to be effective at communicating with rural voters and her home state neighbors Iowa, so it’s entirely possible that she understands those voters better than anyone else running and therefore might surprise by the time the caucus rolls around.

If Klobuchar were elected President, Gov. Tim Walz would appoint a replacement who would serve at least until a special election in November of that year. Attorney General Keith Ellison would be an obvious choice, but it’s unclear whether the moderate Walz would appoint the progressive or if Ellison who only recently left DC would want to return so soon if ever (Ellison also faced serious scandals in 2018). Walz might also consider his Lt. Gov Peggy Flannigan or freshman Rep. Angie Craig.

Bernie Sanders (US Senator from Vermont)

The election of Bernie Sanders would represent the realization of 100 years of movement socialism in the United States which began in earnest with the presidential candidacy of Eugene V. Debs from prison. Unlike the UK and other democracies, the US never developed a true labor party to represent the interests of the working class. The Democratic party still exists in large part to defend neo-colonial interests abroad and corporate interests at home, only distinguishable from the Republican Party in its rejection of white supremacy. Because Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat and does not pretend to be concerned with promoting the center-left agenda of the Democratic establishment, he is facing some audacious resistance from party elites as well as some rank-and-file voters. Unless Sanders can inspire non-voters and independents to support him in the primary, he will almost certainly not be the nominee, because he has become a factional candidate. However he has shown an ability to compete, and his 2016 campaign as well as current fundraising totals serve as evidence.

If Sanders were elected President, the Governor would appoint a successor to serve until a special election could be called, which would be “within 3 months following vacancy”. Because gubernatorial terms in Vermont are two years instead of four, the incumbent Governor Phil Scott, who is a Republican, would be up for re-election in 2020, and either he or a Democratic successor would choose Sanders’ replacement. The party of Sanders’ replacement is functionally irrelevant because should Sanders become President, he’d almost certainly face opposition within his own party in addition to congressional Republicans. Institutional support simply does not exist for Sanders, and his legislative priorities would be stymied. It’s likely that Sanders’ eventual replacement would be either Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman who, like Sanders, is not a Democrat (Zuckerman is a member of the left-wing progressive party) or current Rep. Peter Welch.

Elizabeth Warren (US Senator from Massachusetts)

Elizabeth Warren is having a political moment, and it could snowball into something larger if she plays her cards right. Warren is currently polling third behind Biden and Sanders according to the RealClearPolitics polling average, and rising. Warren has been doing something radical the last few months: creating policies and talking about them in detail. This has been unique in a campaign that has been full of non-specific generalities, broad ideas, and platitudes by other candidates.

If Warren were elected President, her Senate seat would almost certainly be occupied by a Republican for somewhere between “145-160 day,s” according to the Massachusetts statute on filling vacancies. The Governor of Massachusetts is Charlie Baker, a Republican re-elected in 2018 who would be assigned the task of choosing a replacement for a President Warren. This would seriously undermine Warren’s legislative priorities for the first 100 days of her presidency because Mitch McConnell would maintain his position as majority leader and would without a doubt continue his long record of obstruction. It’s hard to imagine what Warren could get done without the Senate and harder still to imagine a successful first term after being robbed of the massive cache of political capital usually afforded to presidents. As for eventual successors, the clearest choice of the party is probably Rep. Joe Kennedy III, whose political star is on the rise.

The post If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2020, what happens to their old office? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

With its call for the twenty-one  (and counting) currently declared Democratic presidential candidates to sign onto the We Are Indivisible 2020 Candidate Pledge, once again the organizers over at Indivisible are demonstrating that they’re the savviest political-action group out there.

Getting out in front of controversy, cleverly framing the issues, confronting head on the challenge and necessity of party unity, and identifying bold tactics to address the issues the grassroots care most about is the modus operandi for this dynamic and highly successful group. Its call for candidates and activists to take the pledge this early in the campaign season is a clear sign that the group is positioning itself and its wide network of supporters to be a force to be reckoned with during the upcoming campaign season.

Although the 2020 campaign season is just gearing up, Indivisible is coming out to demonstrate its commitment to heeding the oft-repeated dictum that those who don’t learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Hoping to prevent the division and distrust that threatened party unity following the 2016 convention, when Hillary Clinton clinched the nomination, Indivisible is coming out early and strong to remind Democratic activists that a repeat of the rancor of 2016 must not be repeated. The group joins a growing crescendo of voices across the political spectrum warning that 2020 is going to be the do-or-die election for recapturing America’s commitment to the rule of law and democracy as articulated by the Constitution.

Rather than waiting in the wings to get behind the eventual Democratic nominees, Indivisible seems to have set down a marker for other progressive groups to follow with this early call to unity. To date, the response to the pledge is off to a good start. As of April 29, seven candidates have signed on to the pledge, with Bernie Sanders being first out of the gate. The other six are Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Jay Inslee, and Elizabeth Warren.

Here, word for word, is Indivisible’s pledge for the Democratic presidential field.

The Pledge for Presidential Candidates

 We must defeat Donald Trump. The first step is a primary contest that produces a strong Democratic nominee. The second step is winning the general election. We will not accept anything less. To ensure this outcome, as a 2020 Presidential candidate, I pledge to:

1. Make the primary constructive. I’ll respect the other candidates and make the primary election about inspiring voters with my vision for the future.
2. Rally behind the winner. I’ll support the ultimate Democratic nominee, whoever it is — period. No Monday morning quarterbacking. No third-party threats. Immediately after there’s a nominee, I’ll endorse.
3. Do the work to beat Trump. I will do everything in my power to make the Democratic nominee the next President of the United States. As soon as there is a nominee, I will put myself at the disposal of the campaign.

And true to its roots, Indivisible has created not just a pledge for the candidates, but a pledge for what the organization calls its “grassroots army.” Added to the basic pledge the candidates are being encouraged to sign are the following goals for everyone else who is committed to working to vote Donald Trump out of office.

The Pledge for the Everyone Else 

1. Make the primary constructive. We’ll make the primary election about our hopes for the future, and a robust debate of values, vision and the contest of ideas. We’ll remain grounded in our shared values, even if we support different candidates.
   
   2. Rally behind the winner. We’ll support the ultimate Democratic nominee, whoever it is — period. No Monday morning quarterbacking. No third-party threats.
   
   3. Do the work to beat Trump. We’re the grassroots army that’s going to power the nominee to victory, and we’ll show up to make calls, knock doors, and do whatever it takes.

For more information and to sign the pledge, go to https://pledge.indivisible.org/?source=form_link1&utm_source=form&utm_medium=link1

The post I pledge allegiance to…Indivisible appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Now that Bernie Sanders is officially in the 2020 Presidential race, all of the old criticisms about him have resurfaced. Here are my responses to 11 of them:

1. “He’s not even a Democrat.”

Sanders has raised literally millions of dollars for Democratic candidates for local, state, and federal office. Sanders campaigned for Barack Obama extensively after he clinched the Democratic nomination in 2008. Sanders has had his legislation co-sponsored (and often co-opted) by several major candidates currently running for President. Sanders has voted against the Trump agenda more often than 42 current Democratic senators and 1 independent, meaning only three senators have voted against Trump more often.

Also, is it simply enough to be a Democrat? Are we seriously making the argument that we’d rather have Joe Manchin as our nominee, as opposed to Sanders, simply because Manchin has a D behind his name? Most serious people wouldn’t argue that, because we understand that it’s policy that matters. Sanders has been supporting Democratic causes and candidates even when much of the party establishment has chosen not to support him.

2. “He divided the party in 2016. Hillary lost because of his supporters.”

Somewhere between 6%-12% of Sanders primary voters ended up supporting Donald Trump in the general election. That’s inexcusable given that the differences between Trump and Sanders were much more significant than the differences between Sanders and Clinton. That said, about 25% of Clinton primary voters ended up voting for John McCain over Barack Obama in 2008. Sanders actively campaigned for Clinton after the convention and his supporters almost uniformly got behind her during the general election, albeit begrudgingly. After the election, Sanders went on a literal unity tour across America with DNC Chairman Tom Perez.

Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 because of a mix of outside circumstances including a poorly timed letter from the director of the FBI, but also because her campaign had a fundamental misunderstanding of the electorate.

3. “He took time from Stacey Abrams’ State of the Union response.”

Bernie Sanders didn’t upstage Stacey Abrams. If anybody upstaged Stacey Abrams it was Kamala Harris (who is also running for President), who decided to deliver her remarks before Abrams. Which is especially bad when you consider that Harris actually is a Democrat and therefore didn’t have any real ideological reason to have her own response. Sanders gave his own response to the State of the Union for last year, too, and this year he waited to deliver his remarks until after Abrams concluded hers. He even began his remarks by praising Abrams, saying “let me thank Stacey Abrams for her extremely effective response. Now, we all know why she would have been a wonderful Governor of Georgia.”

4. “He shouldn’t be running when we have so many other qualified candidates who are women and people of color.”

I’m sensitive to this argument because I was especially disappointed that Barack Obama was succeeded and Hillary Clinton was defeated by the human manifestation of racism and misogyny. I want to see a woman elected president, and I recognize what that would mean for the history of our country. It is truly amazing that we have several experienced women seeking the presidency, and two of those women are minorities. But let’s be clear, it would be disrespectful if we elevated a candidate or placed them under special consideration because of the color of their skin or their gender.

Every candidate has a long record we can look at to understand their vision for America, and we should not minimize any candidate’s accomplishments to their cultural identifiers. I believe Sanders is the best candidate because of his policy ideas, and that’s the only responsible way to approach this primary. Anything else will lead to a further debasement of our politics.

5. “He voted against the Brady Bill, and he didn’t have an F rating from the NRA,”

Bernie Sanders did in fact vote against the Brady bill a number of times, and very early in his career he held a fairly moderate stance on gun regulation, a position that is very much out of step with today’s Democratic party. However Sanders has had a much more progressive record on guns over the last decade and the president of the Brady campaign has said that Sanders is not a “gun lobby lapdog” and has shown evolution in his positions.

Over the last few years, Sanders has voted to ban assault weapons, ban high capacity magazines, and to strengthen the national instant background check system. Sanders has maintained an F rating from the NRA for several years. Democrats have been willing to forgive prosecutors with fairly conservative records, like Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren, who was literally a Republican, and ultimately that’s a good thing. We should encourage our politicians to evolve and end up on the right side of the issues.

6. “He voted for the omnibus crime bill in the 90s, while criticizing Hillary for supporting it.”

An important provision of the crime bill that is often missed is its inclusion of the Violence Against Women Act. When Sanders was explaining his vote for the bill at the time, he specifically referenced his opposition to mass incarceration but his support specifically for the VAWA. Sanders said, “I have a number of serious problems with the crime bill, but one part of it that I vigorously support is the Violence Against Women Act. We urgently need the $1.8 billion in this bill to combat the epidemic of violence against women on the streets and in the homes of America.”

Throughout his tenure in the house and senate, Sanders has opposed bills that were presented as “tough on crime.” Of course, Hillary Clinton’s support of the crime bill was specifically because of its “tough on crime” approach, as was true for Joe Biden and many other Democrats at the time.

7. “He has no accomplishments.”

Here is an entire article about Sanders’ long list of accomplishments. This is from 2016 by the way, since then we can add “introduced Medicare-for-All into mainstream political thought,” among other things.

8. “He’s just too old to be President.”

If Bernie Sanders were to be elected President of the United States, he’d be 79 on inauguration day. Admittedly, that’s not especially young, in fact it’s historically old. But are we arguing that people should stop contributing to society once they reach a certain age? When do people lose their value and ability to participate? Is it at 80? Is it at 75? Is it at 70? That’s a hard question to answer (although for some people I’m sure the answer is “however old Bernie is at any given moment”).

The fact is that Sanders is a unique candidate, and his credibility on many issues is unique to him. So while it might make us more comfortable to have a younger candidate, there is nobody in political life today who has the record of Bernie Sanders.

9. “He’s not electable.”

We don’t know who is and who isn’t “electable.” For example, Donald Trump didn’t poll within 3 points of Hillary Clinton until September 2015. We think we know a few things about Presidential elections. The first is that incumbent Presidents typically have the edge when it comes to re-election. The second is that the public perception of the economy matters less than the actual state of the economy. The final thing is that Presidents who get re-elected typically pivot to the center to broaden their base as Reagan, Clinton, and Obama did after suffering midterm defeats.

Trump being an incumbent works in his favor, however he seems to be a fairly weak incumbent. While it’s true that a few Presidents have suffered worse approval ratings by this point in their term, no President in the history of polling has failed to even once achieve majority support from the voters as Trump has. The economy should in theory work in Trump’s favor, consumer confidence is as high as it’s been since the Clinton boom years. However again Trump isn’t a normal President, with several objectively good economic indicators Trump’s handling of the economy is only approved of by 49% of voters. As for pivoting to the center to broaden his support, declaring a national state of emergency over the southern border suggests that Trump will continue to play to his shrinking base. All of this is to say, it’s still very early but it’s easy to imagine a scenario where most Democrats would be able to defeat Donald Trump.

10. “His campaign was connected to Russia, just like Trump’s.”

Vladimir Putin hated Hillary Clinton. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that he used his cyber-power to weaken Clinton wherever he could, first during the primaries and then during the general election. The difference between Sanders and Trump however is that it seems that members of the Trump campaign (and perhaps Trump himself) were aware of these efforts and actively sought the support of Russia to defeat Clinton. The Mueller team has been diligently investigating Russian collusion during the 2016 election, and up to this point, no members of the Sanders team have been indicted.

Sanders, unlike Trump, has been willing to criticize Putin and his actions in Syria, Ukraine, and his human rights record in Russia. The US Intelligence agencies said it best: “We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”

11. “ I just don’t like him.”

This is fair. Maybe you’re not supportive of lefty policy ideas like Medicare-for-All, or free 4-year public college, or the Green New Deal. Maybe you don’t like the style of Sanders or some of his more toxic supporters. Maybe you’re still hurting over 2016, and despite knowing what you know, can’t forget what happened during the primaries. All of that is fair. However, if Bernie Sanders is our nominee for President, then in order to defeat Donald Trump it’s gonna be necessary to come together and support him. A similar message has been preached to the left since before Nader ran against Gore in 2000, and now it’s your time to accept that for the greater good you might have to support what you consider to be “the lesser of two evils.”

Our most important goal must be defeating Donald Trump and down ballot republicans in 2020.

The post 11 tired criticisms of Bernie Sanders appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If you are frustrated with gridlock and/or intransigence in your state legislature, as many voters are, one way to get your issue considered is to gather signatures and take your proposal directly to voters with a ballot initiative. But that grassroots process—which has proliferated in recent years, as you may have noticed by measuring the length of your November 2018 ballot—is becoming much more difficult in many states.

Currently, 24 states—mostly in the Western half of the country—enable citizens to bypass the legislature with ballot initiatives. Here’s a list of who allows what.

Requirements vary. In general, if you want the next statewide ballot to include, for example, an anti-gerrymandering proposal, or an increase in the tax on gasoline, or an amendment to your state’s constitution, you must get a minimum number of registered voters to sign petitions.

In most states where this direct-democracy process is available, the number of signatures required to qualify for inclusion on the ballot is pegged to the number of voters who voted in the most recent governor’s race.

And that’s the problem. Voter turnout is the key. Low turnout in a governor’s election makes it easier to get petition signatures in later elections. While high turnout—ironically, something that we normally view as a fundamental [small-d] democratic value—works against grassroots signature-gathering efforts.

Case in point: California

California offers an instructive example. To get an issue on the ballot in California, you must gather signatures equal to or greater than 8 percent of the number of ballots cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. In the 2014 election, only 30 percent of voters cast ballots. That meant that, in the next two election cycles (when there was no governor’s race scheduled), supporters of any ballot measure needed just 365,880 valid signatures. “The bar was so low,” reports The Hill, “that California’s ballots were inundated by initiatives: 15 citizen-sponsored ballot measures in 2016 and 8 more in 2018.”

But voters came out in much higher numbers in the 2018 election. “The result is that in 2020 and 2022, using the same 8 percent threshold, initiative supporters will need to collect more than 623,000 valid signatures, a 70 percent increase,” according to the Hill’s reporting.

Same story, different state

A similar scenario is playing out in other initiative-petition states. Here are some examples:

ARIZONA

• Valid signatures needed: 10 percent of votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election for initiatives that would change state laws; 15 percent for initiatives that would amend the Arizona constitution.
• Effect of 2018 voter turnout: 50% more voters cast ballots than in 2014. According to the Arizona Secretary of State, in 2020, initiatives for constitutional amendments will require 356,457 valid signatures.

COLORADO

• Valid signatures needed: At least 5 percent of the total vote cast for all candidates for the office of Secretary of State in the previous general election.
• Effect of 2018 voter turnout: 78 percent of registered voters cast ballots in 2018, compared with 54 percent in 2014. That huge increase means than more than 26,000 additional signatures will be required for future initiatives to make it onto the ballot in 2020. [Colorado had the second-highest turnout in the U.S. during the 2018 midterms.]

OKLAHOMA

• Valid signatures needed: 15 percent of turnout in previous gubernatorial election. [The state has one of the highest thresholds in the country, and allows only 90 days to collect.]
• Effect of 2018 voter turnout: 58 percent of registered voters cast ballots, the highest number in the past 20 years. The previous signature threshold was about 124,000. In 2020, petitioners will have to collect about 44 percent more signatures than before.

More signatures, more money

Getting signatures on statewide initiatives is not free. And the need for more signatures means a need for more money. According to Ballotpedia, the average cost to get one signature varies from state to state, but signature-gathering consulting firms [yes, they exist—it’s not all high-minded volunteers] charge about $6 per valid signature. So, for example, if you want to get signatures in Colorado in 2020, you’re going to need around an additional $156,000. [Most petition gatherers try to get approximately 75 percent more signatures than the requirement, in order to account for signatures that will inevitably be ruled invalid.]

The legislative-backlash factor

Some state legislators are ticked off about the uptick in ballot initiatives, and they’re working on placing more obstacles in the way. “What we’re seeing is death by a thousand paper cuts, says Lauren Simpson, of Americans for a Better Utah, “making it incrementally more difficult for citizens to pass laws on their own through ballot initiatives Our legislature, as a whole, is uncomfortable with citizen ballot initiatives.”

• In Michigan, a new law signed by the outgoing Republican governor limits the number of petition-drive signatures that can be collected in any single congressional district.
• In Ohio, state legislators have been trying, since 2017, to pass a resolution that would raise the signature requirement to 12.5 percent for a constitutional amendment, and from 3 percent to 3.75 percent for statutory initiatives, with a 60 percent super-majority needed to pass either.
• Florida is the only other state that requires more than a simple majority to adopt constitutional changes. Florida requires a 60 percent vote, according to the Columbus Dispatch.
• Another Ohio lawmaker recently proposed a bill that would require that petitions could only be signed during the winter.
• After three marijuana proposals passed in Utah in 2018, one state legislator filed a bill that would allow signature gathering and removal to go on simultaneously. Ballot initiative campaigns would have to turn in their signature packets every 14 days and county clerks would post them online.
• And then there’s Illinois, where the petition process is so restrictive that only one citizen initiative has ever passed.

But, while legislative ploys may be devious and undemocratic, and while increased voter turnout has had the unintended consequence of raising the bar for citizen initiatives, at least this trend is happening in states where citizens have the option to get needed changes by grassroots efforts. In 26 other states, there’s no option at all for ballot measures, and no sign that politicians are eager to create one. That’s the biggest hurdle of all.

The post Ballot initiatives: Downside of uptick in voter turnout appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It seems like everyone is either running for President or having think pieces written about the possibility of them running for President. When I say everyone, I do mean just about everyone (see articles about John Kerry and Hillary Clinton and Al Gore). It’s way too early to start talking about electability, so disregard whatever you read on that subject. At this point in 2011, it seemed pretty clear to everyone that just about any Republican could topple Obama after his midterm thrashing. If that’s too far back for you, remember in 2015 we were told that the only Republican equipped to defeat Hillary Clinton was Mitt Romney.

To be clear, electability matters but we don’t exactly have a metric for what that means. After 2016, it’s abundantly clear that the American voter will elect just about anyone if frustrated enough. It seems electability has just become whatever the pundit decides it is at a given moment. But as we enter a new presidential cycle it’s easy to imagine a scenario where just about any Democrat could defeat President Trump but it’s just as easy to imagine a scenario where nearly nobody could (there are two candidates who I think would win in either case, more on them later).

There are two potential candidates that are worth talking about, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren. This isn’t an endorsement of either or to disparage any candidate, I will vote for literally any Democrat in a race to defeat Donald Trump. Full Stop. However, I think it’s important to acknowledge now before the media narratives take hold that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are not the same, and Elizabeth Warren is different from the rest of the Democrats.

Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist. That’s an important distinction if not the most important distinction. Bernie’s view of politics is shaped by a criticism of class and capitalism which is unique and totally separate from the reformist tendencies of Elizabeth Warren. Warren believes that reforming capitalism is the way to fix larger societal problems and Sanders believes that capitalism is the problem. Warren would tell us that we need to fix our rigged system while Sanders would tell us that the system isn’t rigged but rather that’s just the system and hence why we need an entirely new system. That’s not nothing, it’s an entirely different worldview. Both are worlds more progressive than the field, but those differences matter.

Elizabeth Warren in her announcement video talks about the American Meritocracy. Warren believes that an America can exist where people if they work hard enough can achieve based on that work. Bernie Sanders does not believe that and has made a point throughout his career to state his view that we’ve never truly been a meritocracy and opportunity only exists for those with resources.

Sanders and Warren are different, but not like Sanders and Clinton were different. The Senators do share a number of policy positions and Warren has been very progressive in her own right. Warren and Sanders have co-sponsored Medicare-for-All legislation and other bills relating to environmental protection. Warren recently introduced a bill to create a government-run pharmaceutical manufacturer to mass-produce generic drugs and bring down prices for consumers. Since she first appeared on the national stage during the recession, Warren has been a bonafide progressive. So much so that Bernie was ready to not run for President at all in 2016.

In Bernie’s book “Our Revolution” he explained that he was wanted Elizabeth Warren to enter the race and was waiting on her to do so. It may seem like an eternity ago, but Warren not Sanders was the leader of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party. There were draft movements and party insiders pushing her to run as a contrast to Hillary Clinton, and she refused forcing Bernie to take up the mantle. It was not expected that Bernie’s campaign would be so successful, but it was and the energy in the party moved. That is something that supporters of both should remember when the primaries get into full swing.

Warren stands out for her record in the public and private sector of being very aggressive towards Wall Street and her clear distinct vision on policy. We know who Warren is and what she believes. As for the rest of the field, there’s a lot of similarities between the potential candidates. Much like the Republicans in 2016, there are candidates crowding ideological lanes or overlapping with other candidates making it unclear who could cobble together enough delegates for a majority. There’s a reason for that. Not only are many of the Democrats looking toward 2020 similar in nature, they are essentially the same. Rhetorically there are differences but it’s hard to find the policy disagreements or where their governing philosophies diverge (they also seem to share the same corporate donors). For example, Candidate A says they believe “Everyone should have access to healthcare”, Candidate B says they believe “universal healthcare should be our goal”, while Candidate C says, “Healthcare is a human right and there should be access for everyone.” Now re-read those statements, none of that was a specific policy aim or particularly ambitious. We currently have “universal healthcare” if we consider those who have access. Everyone has “access” much in the same way that I have access to a Ferrari. I do not envy the Iowa Caucus goer who’ll be forced to delineate which candidate’s positions they support most.

I’m not going to mince words, there are some people thinking about running who I find to be particularly odious. Earlier in the piece I said there are two people who I believe undoubtedly could defeat Donald Trump in any circumstance. One of them is Bernie Sanders, who I hold in very high regard for his consistency in policy and personal character. The other is Vice-President Joe Biden who is maybe one of the most likable people in politics, I like him quite a lot. Nevertheless, he has a record as a Senator that is somehow worse than Hillary Clinton’s. Joe Biden voted for the Iraq War, he voted for the Crime Bill, he wrote the legislation that deregulated the banks, his performance during the Clarence Thomas spectacle was shameful, and that doesn’t even begin to mention his complicity in the disastrous War on Drugs.

It troubles me to see so many potential candidates emulating Biden or vying to be the next Barack Obama. It is a very worrying prospect that one of these candidates might turn to the triangulation of Bill Clinton and abandon a progressive policy agenda. There is an obsession among some Democrats about how to appeal to the Trump voter, and I’m unsure what or who they’d be willing to sacrifice just for the possibility that some rural areas might be brought back into the fold. The rest of the field with a few exceptions at this point simply do not seem to have the authenticity about their positions that Warren and Sanders do. That said, every Democrat is better than Donald Trump. Many like Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, and Sen. Corey Booker have been pushed to the progressive side of issues despite relatively centrist pasts and we should encourage that movement. Of course, Sen. Sherrod Brown in Ohio has been inveighing against the excesses of Wall Street and the downsides of Free Trade for over a decade in Ohio. In Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar has always been a supporter of labor interests. Not to forget Beto O’Rourke, who has been a champion for the rights of immigrants and a leader in the fight against racial injustice.

The primary will eventually devolve into a contest of personality rather than policy and we’ll judge candidates by their fundraising totals and not their policy agendas. Hopefully before we get there, we’ll have had a serious assessment of the candidates and thought about not just “who can beat Donald Trump” but “who do we want to be President.” It may seem like the same question, but answers may vary.

The post Bernie vs. Warren vs. Everyone Else appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Democratic party’s rules for nominating presidential candidates are deeply flawed. Unfortunately, cycle after cycle, the party has failed to make changes that would make the process more…er,…democratic. Now, with less than two years to go until the 2020 primary season, the Democratic party is looking at some alterations.

A recent article in the New York Times spells out the problem and some possible solutions:

The most significant, and divisive, step would involve reducing the role and power of superdelegates — the unpledged party insiders who are free to back any candidate regardless of how the public votes — ahead of the 2020 election. Their influence caused substantial tension two years ago when supporters of [Bernie] Sanders zeroed in on superdelegates as “undemocratic” and said they created an unfair and even rigged system favoring [Hillary] Clinton.

Now, party officials, including loyalists held over from both the Sanders and Clinton camps, are inching toward a compromise that would not only minimize the role of superdelegates but change the party’s operational structure as well.

The ideas on the table range from eliminating superdelegates altogether to reducing their numbers significantly — from more than 700 currently to about 280. Some officials said they preferred a proposal in which only elected government officials, and not party leaders, retain their superdelegate status.

…Several D.N.C. officials familiar with the negotiations said the Democrats most averse to change were state party officials and elected members of Congress who would stand to lose their coveted superdelegate status and the exclusive level of candidate access that often accompanies it.

The superdelegate structure has been in place since 1982, when some Democratic party leaders—mostly state and national elected officials—felt that they were being sidelined in the voting.

In “A Brief History of Superdelegates,” Daily Kos blogger Poblano explains that one of the original intents of having superdelegates was:

“..as a mechanism to “break glass in case of emergency”.  Thus could run the gamut from providing some experienced, stabilizing voices in the event of a procedural fight on the convention floor, to potentially picking a different nominee in the event of an Eagleton-type crisis.

Party leaders will vote on the proposal to limit or eliminate superdelegates later this summer. [The Republican party does not have superdelegates.]

Other rule changes under consideration

Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic party, is also planning to work on additional changes. He is quoted in the New York Times as saying that:

“…he will set a presidential primary debate schedule much earlier in the nomination process to minimize the perception of bias. The change is another nod to the factions created by the 2016 election, when Sanders protested vehemently that the debate schedule disproportionately benefited Clinton.

The New York Times reports that Perez also plans to decide the debate schedule in advance, instead of negotiating it after all of the candidates have entered the race.

Perez has also encouraged the D.N.C. commissions that are drafting reforms to recommend changes that would streamline the process of registering to vote in primaries.

Of particular interest to Democratic leaders are state caucuses, which may now be required to accommodate absentee voting, incorporate paper ballots and publicly report statewide voter counts. States that use the traditional primary system may soon be forced to allow same-day registration for voters to register as Democrats.

All of these proposed changes will be presented at a series of party meetings over the summer. It’s sure to be an interesting and lively debate, and the outcome is far from certain. One thing is for sure, though: The 2016 presidential primary season was a debacle—for both parties—and something’s gotta give.

These changes could be a good start. Keep in mind, though, that every time the party tweaks the rules—which is not very often—there can be unintended consequences. Also, one thing that the Democratic party seems not to be addressing is the primary schedule itself—the whole Iowa,  New Hampshire and South Carolina craziness and its disproportionate effect on the nominating process. But, alas, here we are, less than two years away from the next potential disaster, and not a peep from Democrats about this. Without a fundamental change in that schedule, we’re in for another out-of-whack primary season.

The post New rules for Democratic Party: Will they get it right this time? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

(Methodology)

Pundits and politicos have been curating lists of potential contenders for the 2020 Democratic, including on this site, but how do we sort out the chicken shit from chicken salad? That is to say, is there a metric that we can use to rank who should be our nominee? The answer is yes, and I’ve provided my criteria and tabulations below. First, I’ll lay out how my system works and a breakdown of my criteria for candidates.

The Point Scale

There are seven distinct areas in which candidates will be scored on a scale of 1-5. Higher scores are in the candidate’s favor, while lower scores work against the candidate. The scores of each candidate in their respective categories are then added together for their total score. How a candidate is scored is somewhat subject to my own personal bias, but there is a method to the madness. A perfect score on this scale would be a 35, because there are 7 different areas that will be scored.

The Categories

1. Progressiveness: Whomever the Democratic nominee is in 2020, they must be progressive. The party has moved to the left, largely thanks to Bernie Sanders, and it’s expected that voters will demand certain policy promises from candidates. Among these are a commitment to single payer healthcare, environmental regulation, protection of women’s reproductive rights, and reducing the cost of higher education. A candidate’s score is largely reflective of their voting record if they’re in congress, bills they’ve signed into law if they’re a governor, or initiatives they’ve supported as mayor. Public statements are also considered, especially if the person has never held elected office.
2. Financial Ties: There were a lot of arguments with no substance about Hillary Clinton not just during the general election, but during the primaries. There was a widespread belief she was dishonest, despite having a higher percentage of True, Mostly True, or Half True statements than any other candidate in 2016 according to Politifact (including Bernie). But there was one criticism that held water, and was completely legitimate, and that was Hillary’s connection to Wall Street and corporate money. A candidate’s score depends on a few things:
   1. The number of financial institutions in their top 20 donor list (which you can check on this site)
   2. If any Pharmaceutical/Insurance companies are top 20 donors
   3. What politicians have donors in common
   4. Policy positions as it relates to the aforementioned industries.
3. Age: If you ask Americans their ideal age for a presidential candidate, the results aren’t that shocking. 82% of Americans want a candidate between the age of 40-59. Only 9% want a candidate under the age of 40, 8% want a candidate in their 60s, and 0% want a candidate over 70. We have some reason to believe that ageism affects the way we vote, because throughout the 2016 primaries and general election questions were constantly raised about the candidate’s respective health and whether they could complete a full term in office. There was also ageism in the reverse direction when pundits and politicians would poke at Marco Rubio for being the youngest candidate in the race at the age of 45, making insinuations about whether or not he was “ready”. Therefore, in this category, the lowest scored candidates are ones who will be older than President Trump in 2020, and the highest scored are those who will be in their mid-forties to mid-fifties come 2020.
4. Psychologically Fit: This metric is somewhat subjective. The score is largely based upon how gaffe prone a candidate is, whether or not they’ve had public outbursts, and how they deal with high stress situations. For example, Joe Biden earns a 4 in this category. Although Biden is well known for gaffes and is a master of foot in mouth, but even through the death of his son and other personal tragedies he’s still performed admirably. So, Biden loses quite a few points for his mouth, but gains because of his will to persevere. A candidate might also lose points for being oblivious to what’s happening around them or being out of touch in general. There’s also the matter of tendencies to self-aggrandize or the lack of sincerity in public as well as private settings.
5. Comfort in Own Skin: This metric is even more subjective. We tend to forget that politicians are people too. In fact, some politicians are horribly awkward people who fumble their words, don’t give townhalls, only know how to speak in platitudes, or are fairly neurotic. This score is reflective of my view of not only the candidates’ charisma generally speaking, but how they perform in interviews, and how well they can deliver a speech.
6. Confident but Not Arrogant: This metric is the most subjective, but I promise each candidate was thoroughly looked over before they were scored. When a politician is delivering their ideas, or performing in a debate, it behooves them to be confident in their presentation. A politician should be unafraid to challenge a journalist or call out hypocrisy. But, there exists a fine line between confidence and arrogance. For example, Bernie Sanders of course scores points for being out-front for progressive issues that relate to healthcare, education, trade, and so many other things. Bernie then loses points for not being a Democrat, being rejected by nearly 17 million Democratic voters, then having the gall to tell Democrats how to win elections or run their party. He’d also lose points for going to Nebraska, campaigning for an anti-choice candidate, perhaps believing that his star power can propel any candidate over the finish line. But this isn’t about Bernie, and as critical as that analysis was, he still managed a 3.
7. Demographics: I prefer not to use the term identity politics, but in 2016 it became more clear that certain types of people are more excited by candidates that look like them. African-American voters made up the smallest portion of the electorate since 2004, followed by record highs for the last two election cycles. Similarly, fewer women voted for the Republican in 2016 than in any presidential election since 1996. Even if this data doesn’t necessarily show causation, it does show some strong correlation. Then there’s quite a bit of anecdotal evidence and media narratives emerge when candidates look one way versus another. The scores for this category are as follows…
   1. White Male, Over 50: 1
   2. White Male, Under 50: 2
   3. White Female: 3
   4. Minority Male: 4
   5. Minority Female: 5

*If a candidate is unscored on any category, it’s because not enough public information was available to make an evaluation.

For additional thoughts on this topic, see Arthur Lieber’s post in Occasional Planet.

The post It’s Never Too Early! Narrowing the 2020 Field appeared first on Occasional Planet.