The Iowa Caucus: The Best in Democracy, the Best Decision I Ever Made

I'm pretty East Coast. I love spending my time in Philadelphia and New York, I love the beach, and I love the fast pace. Iowa doesn't seem like a natural fit for a person like me, and yet here I am, on Iowa Caucus Eve, reminiscing about my time there, my friends there, and the experience that helped re-shape the adult I am. Iowa did re-shape my view of politics, but it did a lot more than that personally, and I can't help but be grateful for that.

I lived out of an apartment in Des Moines' Wakonda Village and a hotel room at the Extended Stay Inn on the Waterloo/Cedar Falls border. I worked a twelve county region, one that included larger counties like Black Hawk (Waterloo) and Cerro Gordo (Mason City/Clear Lake), but also had a laundry list of smaller counties- Poweshiek (Grinnell), Tama, Grundy, Butler, Bremer, Chickasaw, Howard, Worth, Mitchell, and Floyd. I visited Native Americans, drove on dirt roads, had meetings in college town coffee shops, and had soup dinners with Congressmen. I staffed famous people (Paul Simon), Senators (Wyche Fowler), and many Congress members while I was there. I toured the Willis' Family's Dream Farm in Thornton, IA, and tasted the amazing food they produced there. I did the nightlife fun of Iowa City and Ames, and of course had some good nights in Des Moines (including my 24th birthday). I even watched the Red Sox win game seven of the ALCS in 2007 at a bar in Cedar Falls with Senator Dodd and some friends. Those long rides under the Iowa night, coming back from campaign stops in other counties to my home base in Waterloo were a time of great growth and development for me. I went from being a recent college graduate to a professional out there, and all it took me was a year out of my comfort zone, having one of the great experiences of my life.

Iowa was really great to me, but it's also been very good to all of you. It is the last bastion in our politics where retail politics and face-to-face interactions can save us from being ruled by campaign ads and Washington, DC media firms. It's a common-sense kind of place where people ask questions and then make up their mind based on the results. Oh sure, we laugh at candidates eating fried food on a stick at the Iowa State Fair, but for a brief time, we force these hyper-ambitious candidates to interact with real, average, normal people, and see how they live. What happens in Iowa during the caucus is beautiful.

The thing is, you couldn't do this in Pennsylvania, or New Jersey, or New York. I obviously love it out here, where I'm from, but it's different. You couldn't get 30 people in a coffee shop to see a second-tier Presidential candidate in July, or one-hundred people in a bar around the holidays to listen to a U.S. Senator speak about agriculture policy. Iowans take the process seriously, and they generally give candidates a look that other people around the country just wouldn't. Candidates have to do more than just run TV ads to win Iowa.

Eight years ago, I spent caucus night in a gym in Grinnell, IA. It was the site where most of the college kids went, and it was an exciting place to be. I got to Des Moines in time to see most of the speeches that night, and spent the night out in town with both the celebratory (Obama folks) and the upset (everybody else). A few short days later, I left, and the rest since is history.

I wish I was in Waverly, Clear Lake, Grinnell, Mason City, Waterloo, Grundy Center, Tama, or anywhere else in Iowa right now. Circumstances change, life changes, and sometimes you can't go back and re-experience the past. I view my time in Iowa as one of the best times I've ever had. I view the people of Iowa with a great deal of respect and fondness. I'm really glad I got a chance to experience their process. For this caucus, I'll be home in Easton, watching the results on College Hill. My heart and mind will be a thousand miles from home though.

It's Trump's to Win, But...

Donald Trump should win Iowa tomorrow. He has a 5% lead. He's leading nationally. He's getting all the coverage. He's clearly the candidate surging late in Iowa. In short, him losing would be a real surprise.

It might happen though. Donald Trump may very well have 28% support, but is that going to show up? Can he get them to the Iowa Caucus? If he does, are his precinct captains good enough at this to keep them together? Sure, the Republican process is easier than the Democratic process, but it's still not a primary election.

Trump should win. Ted Cruz has an organized following though. Marco Rubio and Ben Carson do too. I would be surprised if Trump loses obviously, but is he as organized as they are? If he is, tomorrow night will be a coronation. If he isn't, someone else will win Iowa in a shocker.

Hillary's Iowa Lead, and the Final Outcome

Now that the final Iowa Poll is out from the Des Moines Register, I think it is fair to say that Hillary has a narrow lead in the race for President. The previous Iowa Poll had Hillary up 42-40%, a narrow lead with a month to go that made me believe that Bernie Sanders was going to simply blow by her and win Iowa, relatively close. That a few weeks later, we're looking at a 45-42% Hillary lead means that never managed to happen. My prediction that Bernie would win isn't necessarily obsolete, but it's less likely. The Iowa Poll has a great record of nailing the final results in the caucus, and they continue to show Hillary leading, which at least should give pause to those who see a 2008 repeat.

The bottom line out of that poll is that the race stabilized, her fall stopped, and this race is in the hands of a hand full of caucus-goers. Hillary Clinton is now at 45%, and leading, but that is not 50%, and that does not show me how it will equate out into caucus delegates. On the one hand, she probably leads, even after second choicers decide. On the other hand, 10% are still undecided, and the race is well within range for them to decide the election.

Let's look at several factors that are still out there on this race:

• O'Malley's 3% in the poll represents a number so low that he's unlikely to win many delegates. In every caucus site in the state, you have to reach a 15% minimum to win delegates and remain viable. When you don't reach that point, you have to make a second choice. In the only polling on this that I have seen, Bernie leads Hillary by a 2:1 margin. If that is the final outcome, you can add 2% to Bernie and 1% to Hillary, which would make the race 46-44%. In other words, it's a significant group, in a close race, however this alone probably won't change the caucus. Bernie would still need more than that to win. Bottom line for Martin O'Malley though is that I'd be surprised if his 3% in the poll brings him 3% of the delegates won.
• If we assume that about one in ten Democrats are undecided, as this poll shows, this is where the race is likely to be decided. Again though, if Hillary in fact does have a 2-3% lead going into this vote, Bernie will have to win this group significantly. A 60-40% victory amongst the undecideds may get him a victory, but even at that level it's no lock. Bernie's likely going to need a huge number amongst these people, people who haven't been won over by anyone yet. I do assume he will at least win these people though, as I am not sure what new information about Hillary Clinton is going to change someone's mind at this point.
• So what about the "Benedict Arnold" vote, or the people who will change their mind? Amongst Hillary's supporters, 83% have made up their mind. Amongst Bernie's supporters, 69% won't change. In other words, this isn't likely to be Bernie's pathway to victory.
• Hillary leads amongst experienced caucus-goers, while Bernie leads amongst people who say they will "probably" go. The first time caucus-goers number is at 30%. Hillary leads amongst older voters, Bernie amongst younger voters. In short, if Bernie's going to win, he's going to need to have a great turnout game. He's going to have to do that with a tougher group of caucus-goers to turnout, and a rather average number of "new caucus-goers" coming out right now.
• In case you think there is an intensity gap in Iowa? Both have over 80% approval, she has a narrow lead on the question of "enthusiasm" for one of them being nominee.
• Yes, this race is within the margin of error. Bernie could actually be ahead. When several polls in a row show a narrow lead for a candidate though, I tend to believe it. It's worth entertaining that he might be ahead, but I'm fairly confident in the consistency here, and that it's the Iowa poll.

All of that leads to one conclusion- it's really, really close, but Hillary is likely to win. If Bernie is going to win, he will do so by driving turnout north of 200,000, and winning by a much larger margin in Johnson, Story, and Polk Counties. Hillary can put the race away by holding her own in the east and beating him much worse in Western Iowa than is expected. I'm watching counties like Black Hawk (Waterloo), Dubuque, Scott (Davenport), and Linn (Cedar Rapids), all quite large, and all being counties where I could see either of them doing very well. 

The bottom line? Hillary managed to stabilize the race in Iowa over the last month, and probably leads a very narrow race. Bernie can still win Iowa, but it's going to be considerably harder than it looked a few weeks ago.

Happy Friday

My Current Democratic Primary Endorsements

On April 26th, Pennsylvania will vote in the 2016 Primary. I will be amongst the many voters casting ballots for President, delegates to the convention, U.S. Senate, Attorney General, Treasurer, and Auditor General of the commonwealth, and state legislative seats. Right now, here are some of the candidates I support:

President
I support Hillary Clinton. I've talked about why at length. You have to vote separately for delegates, so for now I'll reserve comment on that.

U.S. Senate
I'm leaning towards supporting Katie McGinty at the moment, but I do like things about Joe Sestak and John Fetterman. McGinty is the governor's endorsed candidate, worked in the Clinton Administration in Washington and Governor Rendell and Wolf's here, and has a solid team.

Attorney General
I'm backing Northampton County's District Attorney, John Morganelli. He's tough but fair, has the most experience of the field, and has represented our area well. None of his opponents match his qualifications, and none of them have his ability to appeal to centrist Democrats and Republicans that can be key as voters drop off down the ballot.

Treasurer
My understanding is that this race is now just between Joe Torsella and Albert Baker Knoll. I like both a lot, so far. I'm going to let this one play out a little longer before leaning in either direction.

Auditor General
Eugene DePasquale is the incumbent, he's doing a great job, and he should be re-elected.

PA-17
I will be voting for Congressman Matt Cartwright against Wilkes-Barre conservative Brian Kelly.

My Iowa Republican Forecast

Donald Trump is filling every venue he uses in Iowa. He's drawing thousands of people to his events. He's clearly the candidate with the energy and enthusiasm in the Republican field in Iowa at this point. Ted Cruz is focusing on more "traditional" Evangelical audiences, and Marco Rubio and others are simply finding some spots for them to compete and try to surprise.

We have seen this before though on both sides. Huge crowds don't necessarily mean a better caucus performance, as sometimes it can be hard to turn out those people on caucus night. The reality is that those people all have to show up Monday night, on time, and go through the process. The Republican process is less quirky than the Democratic one, but it still requires organization to turn people out. Ultimately, the strength of Team Trump on the ground will decide this race.

I don't think Ted Cruz is in good shape. That he's turning to his original base in the closing days tells me he doesn't have momentum anymore. I also don't really think anyone else, including Marco Rubio, is in great shape to catch him. Even though Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum has won the last two caucuses, neither seems poised to take off next Monday and challenge again, and both could be done. Rand Paul could be in a position to surprise us Monday, as he has a pretty decent organization there, but he never really caught fire either. No one else seems like they are even really relevant.

I'm going to say Trump is the guy to beat Monday. All he has to do is turn out a large chunk of his crowds, and he should win Iowa. Cruz certainly does have a shot to win, but he also has a shot to disappoint and fall on his face. Paul and Rubio are the other two I'm watching closely, with Bush, Huckabee, and Santorum all likely to show up with some degree of support. Huckabee and Santorum's success or lack thereof will either kill or boost Cruz, while any caucus goers for Bush do a little more to kill off Rubio. A Trump win may put the nomination within his reach, given his New Hampshire lead. A Cruz win means he has a real shot to win the nomination. Rubio needs a strong third to boost him to a clear second or better in New Hampshire. Paul could revive his efforts with a third place finish. The stakes are high, but knowing that Trump did hire some solid Iowa operatives to do his caucus effort, I'd bet on his chances on Monday.

Hope

I'm a pragmatist at heart. I'm skeptical of movements, "revolutions," and any attempts at "change" that are grounded outside of the political process. I am not saying they don't exist. Martin Luther King Jr. changed America with protestors, speeches, and no political office. Almost no leaders in modern America have the talents that King had. Even if they do, the odds are more likely they fail than that they achieve. I can point at a lot more LBJ's and Teddy Roosevelts than MLK's. Most change comes from within the process, and that requires sometimes painful compromise. That's not easy. It's not always nice. It's almost never popular. It does make peoples' lives better.

In 2008, I was not a support of President Obama's until he was the nominee. He wasn't in my top three choices in the Democratic Primary, in fact (for the record, my order of preference in the beginning of 2008 was Dodd, Biden, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Richardson). I found his "hope and change" message to be pie-in-the-sky, something I thought had no grounding in reality. He not only won me over in that election, he eventually has become someone I admire now and think has done an excellent job. President Obama has shown that he can both inspire and get in the trenches to get things done. At the time though, I definitely preferred Hillary Clinton's "LBJ" to President Obama's "JFK."

Fast forward eight years, to a new election. Bernie Sanders is now the candidate of the activist left. He's attracting huge crowds, even bigger than President Obama's 2008 crowds at this point. He's inspiring youth to want to vote for him. He's speaking what many progressives feel is truth to power. He's also calling for a "political revolution" in this country, one that takes on the entrenched power interests in this country. He's got stars like the Red Hot Chili Peppers endorsing him and throwing concerts to raise money for him. Bernie is the "change" candidate now. He is the "hope."

We're having this same fight again- Hillary's uninspiring realism vs. Bernie's version of the Obama "hope and change" tour. Bernie's offering you ice cream for breakfast, versus Hillary's "eat your peas and carrots." The truth is, there is no passion and energy for realism, for working within the system, for working to make incremental change, and Bernie seems to know that. There is also a very strong track record of realism being what gets the job done.

Unlike eight years ago, I'm a little older now, and a lot less emotionally invested into this race. The truth is, voting for realism is always smart- you know what you're getting, and you can honestly hold the candidate accountable to do it. Hillary Clinton should be expected to make the deals to get some of her priorities done. The other side of that coin is that people need hope. People need to feel something will change. They have to feel that their lives are going to be better. If they don't, what's the point? If Hillary could ever explain how her pragmatic view of the world will deliver that, she would have won the runaway nomination that we all thought she would. That's tough though. People don't want to eat their vegetables, they want their cake. If Hillary, or really anyone else for that matter, were capable of selling pragmatism as great change, they would have done it by now. Since they can't, you're left with a battle between cold realism and dreams and hopes.

My guess is that Hillary will eventually win the Democratic nomination for President. Pragmatism actually usually wins. President Obama is one of the few times where the inspirational, transformational candidate beat the realist. There are a lot more Howard Deans, Bill Bradleys, and Eugene McCarthys in our history than Barack Obamas. President Obama even acknowledges now that he did not change American politics. To be totally fair to him, he made incredible change that helps peoples lives. He changed our health care system, our banking system, our energy system, our foreign policy, and many other areas of our lives. He did that though through pragmatism and inside ball. Yes, he kept Organizing for Action open, and his volunteer army played a huge part. That still doesn't explain how he passed his Stimulus bill.

Hope is critical. Inspiration is key. To the extent that Hillary Clinton eventually figures that out, it will determine if she can win the Presidency. Her ability to rise above the clouds and give people a reason to be excited will be what ultimately makes her the winner, or not. In the end though, I return to my 2008 self and say it again- hope doesn't make change by itself.

The GOP Field is so Weak, Trump Won a Debate he Wasn't at

I missed the real time Republican Debate broadcast on Fox last night. I'm glad I did, for the sake of my health, as listening to those windbags spout off nonsense raises my blood pressure. It's become so bad that listening to Marco Rubio is no longer something I can do in good conscience.

I did watch the pundits afterwards, and I did watch the Trump event later on. The one thing that is clear is that Donald Trump won last night. Yes, he won without going to the debate. He won without appearing on TV or stepping into the building. While some felt that Jeb Bush had a good night, and others thought Rand Paul or Marco Rubio had good moments, just about every pundit, and my opinion, agreed that Donald Trump won. He left last night in no weaker position to win Iowa on Monday, and the nomination this Summer.

This is how terrible the Republican candidates for President are. Donald Trump doesn't even show up, and he wins the debate. While the press keeps waiting for Trump to fail, Rubio to rise, and whatever else they think will happen, the race just keeps staying the same. Donald Trump can insult entire races and religions, engage in an unprecedented fight with the media moguls that run the GOP, and skip debates, and still beat these clowns. These candidates don't get the GOP base like he does, and they just aren't smart or talented. In short, to quote Trump, candidates like Rubio and Cruz are "losers." He can beat them without even showing up.

In Politics, You Can't Always Get What You Want

It's hard for a candidate to be told "no," I get it. Every candidate thinks they are new and different, and that they are the "future." Every candidate thinks they are the one that can win. Every candidate thinks they should be the choice of the party. I've had to tell candidates they wouldn't be getting party resources before, that their poll numbers are bad, it's a tough conversation.

Recently, I've been following a local story where "the party elders" told a candidate they were not the first choice of the party. This candidate was told that the party is going to put it's energy behind a different candidate. They were told the opponent would have a better organized campaign, and would be a better candidate. The other candidate has long-standing, deep roots in the community, they have solid policy positions, and they would start a general election with a lot better profile to run on. That may not be true in a few years. That may not be true for a different office. Nothing is ever set in stone. The great part about this is, if you don't agree with the thoughts of "the party elders," you can run anyone and try to prove them wrong. Even so, the "party elders" are usually right. These types of calls aren't made based on how much people "like" the person involved, they're based on facts and history.

Whether they are or not, the wrong response is to lash out and behave like a martyr. In a totally unrelated case, a different local Democrat who wasn't happy about the delegate selection process for the convention called the entire process "fixed" once they found out they weren't selected. I understand, feelings get hurt in this stuff. It's tough. Lashing out and attacking the integrity or motives of others isn't necessary. It's not productive. It's also usually incorrect. No one "feels bad for you" after you go on the attack like that. You prove no point, at least not about other people.

The Destruction of the Republican Party

Right now, we are supposed to be watching Jeb! Bush cruise to the family birthright known as the Republican nomination for President. If he was going to lose, Marco Rubio was supposed to be making history. It was always possible neither would catch on, and John Kasich or Chris Christie were going to surprise us all. Initially, Scott Walker was supposed to be an option. Then, along the way here, Donald Trump defined Jeb as "low energy," Marco Rubio turned out to be not so bright, and Kasich and Christie just can't quite break through. Walker? He flopped.

Right now in New Hampshire, Kasich, Christie, Rubio, and Bush combine up for about 40% of the vote. Because they are splitting that vote though, they are all well behind Donald Trump in New Hampshire. In Iowa, the race has come down to Trump and Ted Cruz. Candidates like Rand Paul never really caught on, and former contenders like Huckabee and Santorum have been reduced to side-show status. Iowa Republicans are basically giving up the fight against Trump, in part because they can't beat him, and in part because they don't want Ted Cruz either.

In a functional political party, Iowa isn't coming down to Trump vs. Cruz. The Republican establishment has failed though. They did not function as a political party is supposed to. After months of trying to stop Trump, some of them are now trying to stop Cruz instead. They can't coalesce behind one of the establishment candidates, which is making it hard for them set up an alternative to Trump. It is possible that Trump simply wins Iowa and New Hampshire, and we wake up in a race where Trump is very nearly the presumptive nominee.

The inmates run the asylum in the GOP. The party has moved so far to the hard right, because their voters want them to, that they aren't recognizable as a political party anymore.

"You think about it: When I ran against John McCain, John McCain and I had real differences, sharp differences, but John McCain didn’t deny climate science," Obama said on Politico's "Off Message" podcast. "John McCain didn’t call for banning Muslims from the United States… [The] Republican vision has moved not just to the right, but has moved to a place that is unrecognizable."

This movement is not ultimately productive. The Republican Party is now a collection of conspiracy-theorists, loons, and angry people who aren't listening to anyone in the establishment, and instead are following the Donald Trump's of the world. If the establishment had any form of muscle or power, they would have avoided this. They would have been able to push out some of the establishment candidates, and get that vote concentrated behind one candidate. They couldn't though- because the Republican Party is broken. That's why they pushed out Speaker Boehner. That's why their establishment candidates are failing. That's why Donald Trump might be the Republican nominee.

Why I Think Bernie Will Win Iowa, Why It's No Lock, and Why It Might Not Matter

Iowa Caucus going Democrats just aren't enamored with Hillary Clinton. She may or may not win them in the end, this time, but eight years ago they sank her candidacy with a third place finish. It appeared that she was safely on her way to victory this time, but now that's not so. The Des Moines Register's last poll showed her lead all the way down to 2%, putting her in danger of losing again. This contest continues to be a problem for her.

Hillary Clinton's lead is down to 42-40% in the DMR Poll, the one poll I'd typically bet on in Iowa. The reason it got closer was a drop in support for Clinton, not a rise in support for Bernie. Even so, Bernie seems to have the momentum out there, not Hillary. If this seems to be 2008 all over again to you, it might be. That's also no lock. This movement in the race means one of two things will happen: Either momentum will carry Bernie to victory or voters who went undecided will decide he's not a viable choice to lead the party forward.

I've worked in Iowa twice, including on a caucus, and have a few theories about the state of the race with six days left. Here are my thoughts:

I think Bernie Sanders will win Iowa
My guess is that momentum leaning his way will carry Bernie Sanders to a victory. The race is very close, and while much has been made that his campaign is not Obama's, he's still running a very solid Iowa operation. Martin O'Malley is unlikely to be viable in much of the state, and so his supporters will get a second choice on caucus night. In the only polling on that subject that i've seen, Bernie leads big. If the race remains very close, that might just decide the caucus. If the caucus is just made up of people who caucused before, Bernie is in trouble, but the "enthusiasm gap" leans his way, and Hillary is scrambling to close it. Demographics and ideology also lean his way- the state is largely white, and the caucus-goers are more liberal than the population at-large. Bernie is also polling very strong in delegate-rich Eastern Iowa, much like President Obama did.

All of this ads up to my guess right now- Bernie will win, close, in Iowa. He won't crush her, I don't think, and it may not be that he ends up actually winning Iowa once they get to state convention, but for now he'll be up.

It's Not a Lock Though
Hillary isn't behaving like she's dead in Iowa. Lena Dunham, Demi Lovato, and Bill Clinton aren't surrogates you send into a state you're toast in. Sure, it's better for her if she wins there, so of course she should try, but if she were out of it, you'd see her sending resources elsewhere.

Here's the alternative scenario to Bernie's momentum carrying him to victory in Iowa- he never really had a chance. The race got close because Clinton supporters in Iowa moved back to undecided. They haven't been with Bernie yet. Perhaps him getting close, and therefore being viewed more seriously, will convince Iowans that he's not worth the chance. Perhaps they will come home to her in the closing weeks, and stick with the "safe" pick. It would be a break from the 2004 and 2008 contests, where momentum carried the day, but it wouldn't be outlandish to think it could happen.

Winning Iowa Might Not Matter
In 2004, a victory in Iowa shot John Kerry from the middle of the pack nationally to the nomination. in 2008, President Obama's Iowa victory was the key in spring-boarding him to the nomination. In 2016, Bernie Sanders may not be in the same position. President Obama's victory in Iowa was such a big deal in no small part because it defied all history on demographic politics to see an African-American Presidential candidate win in such a white state. For many reasons that have been discussed, Bernie winning in such a white state is not as big of a deal. Iowa only will have a dramatic impact on the race if Hillary wins it- because it will probably end the nomination fight, for all intents and purposes.

Bernie Sanders ultimately needs to follow a similar path to John Kerry's 2004 path, sweeping Iowa and New Hampshire to have any kind of shot at the victory. Even then, Clinton holds a substantial lead in national polling, and a particularly strong lead amongst African-American voters who will be key in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday. Even as Bernie's "surge" has been ongoing over this past month, it hasn't lead him to better numbers amongst this key demographic yet. If he's losing amongst African-Americans, Latinos, and other key groups within the party, he's not going to be the nominee without narrowing the margins. That's particularly key when you think about Nevada, South Carolina, and the "SEC States" that will vote on Super Tuesday.

Finally, there is the ace-in-the-hole of all of this- I think President Obama wants Hillary Clinton to be the nominee. If Hillary can simply hold on in either Nevada, South Carolina, or both, I think it's entirely possible that he will endorse her. That would be a substantial blow to Bernie's chances of winning the nomination.

Bernie has to win Iowa, and New Hampshire, to win the nomination. Even if he does that though, he still would be an underdog to win. I would predict a Sanders victory in Iowa, but I'd also argue that this isn't that crucial to the end result, ultimately.

A Month Ago, It Was Christmas...

Five Places I Want to See a Game

Photo by Richard Wilkins Jr.

This past Summer I went to 40 professional baseball games. It was a lot of fun, and along the way I checked off Pittsburgh's PNC Park amongst the ballparks I've been to. With that out of the way, and having been to both of New York's ballparks, Camden Yards, Miller Park, and Nationals Park, it's time to update my five sports stadiums and arenas I want to get to for a game:

1. Wrigley Field- Still, all these years later, I haven't been to the one ballpark I've always wanted to get to. I love the ivy, love the day games, and love their traditions. It'll be a little harder, now that they're good, but it's still a goal of mine.
2. Notre Dame Stadium- I love college football, especially in Happy Valley, but I'd really like to see a game there. It is truly the holy grail of college sports.
3. Dodger Stadium- I need to get out to Chavez Ravine for a game. I'd really like to do a whole west coast trip, with this as the center piece.
4. Heinz Field- I did see a concert there already, but I think a Steelers game would be a lot of fun. That place probably gets really loud in person.
5. Wembley Stadium- Kind of a long shot, but I feel like seeing a soccer game there is like seeing a baseball game at Yankee Stadium.

CAMVP! I'm Pulling for the Panthers in Super Bowl 50

I was a little sad yesterday to watch Tom Brady lose. I'd like to see Touchdown Tommy get that record of five rings, and I'd like to always see Peyton Manning lose. For me, it goes back to Peyton's Tennessee days, when he couldn't get over the hump against Florida, and it annoyed me. Then as a pro, I wanted him to beat a younger Brady-Belichick duo, but he always lost. I branded him a loser. Sure, he finally got one in Indianapolis, but he's mostly been a choker his entire career. At this point I just want him to finish that way. I'm tired of him, his Nationwide commercials, and his football career. More so than Manning though, I have no love for John Elway at all. What he did to Baltimore at the outset of his career was awful.

With all of that out of the way, I'm a Cam Newton fan for the next two weeks. With all apologies to Larry Fitzgerald, who I hoped would get a ring, Cam is the man right now. First off, how can you not like this guy? Oh sure, he dances around when things go well, but that's because he's out there having fun. He's handing footballs to kids, dancing with cancer patients, and having a good time. Cam Newton is exactly the image that football needs. Has he made past mistakes? Sure has. Let's not hold youthful transgressions against the guy though.

On the field, he's on the cusp of something amazing. Cam Newton won this year's MVP award. He won the Heisman in college. He won the SEC championship in college. He won the NFC championship as a pro. He won a BCS National Championship. If he wins the Super Bowl, he will have basically achieved everything a quarterback can achieve in major football. This may seem amazing, but Cam could be Canton bound just by winning one more game, because he will have basically done everything a football player can do.

Do I want to root for a perennial underachiever like Peyton Manning to salvage his legacy in big games, or for a young, up-and-coming superstar to make history and join the greats in the history of the game? For me it's easy. Give me the dab, the handing footballs to kids, and the NFL MVP Cam Newton over Peyton Manning any and every time. Keep pounding, Carolina!

Can You Tell The Difference?

We Don't Need Donald Trump to Make Us Great- We Already Are

I posted this on Facebook mockingly yesterday, but it's worth re-posting here:

Sarah Palin, a war criminal who killed 24,000 Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, Willie Robertson, Chingy, Anne Coulter, and Hulk Hogan... With supporters like these, aren't you convinced that Donald Trump is gonna make America great again? Lmfao, what a joke....

Donald Trump is running a freak show of a campaign, and it's working. The man is many things, but amongst them is a marketing genius, and he had a keen understanding of what product a portion of the Republican electorate wants to buy. He's giving it to them, not in the code of Reagan and Gingrich, or the policies of Nixon and Bush, but in a straight-forward package that leaves no doubts. Walls along the borders, bans on Muslims entering the countries, cultural pandering, and promises of a "return to a fallen glory," that many conservatives feel they need. It's great marketing. They want to be "made great again," in all of it's flawed logic, and he is offering them the mechanism to do so.

The problem is that America is already great, for all of it's flaws. In reality, the things he represents, the people supporting him, and the hate he is encouraging all actually pull us down. Banning Muslims doesn't make us great, it violates our ideals we have held dear, and it makes us cowards. Building a wall with Mexico doesn't make us great again, it tells our neighbors and friends that we want them to stay out, stay away from America. Donald Trump would make us an ugly, hateful country. The support he is attracting makes a mockery of our democracy.

America is a great place. I tell myself that every time I drive on a paved road, or send mail, or step foot into a public school. It's a great country when cops patrol our neighborhoods, firemen run into burning buildings, and men and women driving plow trucks dig us out after a blizzard. We are a diverse nation with a high standard of living, relative peace amongst us, and public services that make our grand society survive. We have amazing entertainment, brave military, police, and firemen protecting us, and caring doctors, nurses, school teachers, and social workers helping people. Yeah, sure, we're a changing nation, but that hasn't made us less great. The world looks to us morally, for leadership, and culturally, and is simultaneously critical of our mistakes, but wanting to copy our successes. We are more respected around the world than we were ten years ago, certainly.

We don't need Donald Trump to make us great. Our people are great. Our cities, farms, mountains, suburbs, and towns are great. Our sports and entertainment is great. Our standard of living and economy is the envy of much of the world. America is great. We certainly don't need the guy that David Duke endorsed to make us great, again.

One of the Best Ads I've Seen, Ever

Since we're in full-out campaign mode at this point, and I'm a Hillary supporter, I guess I shouldn't be saying this, but the Bernie "America" ad is amazing. Some have knit-picked at how "white" it is, but it's a well done ad that sends forth the right message- his campaign is about the people who have driven it. I love the song choice, and the ad is pretty inspirational. I like it's "down home" feel too.

Bernie has run a really good campaign. He has some first rate operatives working for him, and they have done a marvelous job. I never thought Bernie Sanders would be the candidate pushing Hillary at this point, but they did a great job creating a narrative and selling the candidate's message to the Democratic electorate. They deserve a tip of the hat.

This ad brings back memories of 2008 for me. I remember driving Paul Simon in Iowa when he came to campaign for Senator Chris Dodd in 2008. He was pretty nice, and I thought it was the coolest event I ever got to work. I'm glad to see Simon & Garfunkel are still solid progressives.

I Want Hillary's America

I know this seems hard to believe for some people, but I actually prefer Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders. I prefer her as the more pragmatic and electable option, but I also just prefer her experience, ideas, plans, and what she would stand for as President of the United States. It's not even really that I dislike Bernie Sanders. I just think Hillary Clinton is better.

I don't particularly care that she took Wall Street donations or speaking fees (President Obama raised money on Wall Street too, and he turned out fine). I'm not at all bothered that she is taking the less "radical" positions on banks, health care, education, Iran, and other issues. She has a super-PAC? Good, she'll be able to compete, hopefully. She "evolved" on marriage equality? That's fine, so did President Obama and Vice-President Biden, and they ended up good on the issue. Your shots at her for being a "Republican" aren't moving too many people, and are actually pretty laughable next to the actual Republicans.

I want to elect Hillary Clinton as President of the United States, and I say that while acknowledging that her campaign has been frustrating, and that sometimes her answers do leave you wanting more. Politics is not about "feeling good," it's about making lives better, and Hillary is the person better positioned to do so. My reasons why are pretty straight forward-

1. I feel she's better positioned to win- It is damn near impossible to predict the mood of the country in November, let alone how either candidate will fair between now and then. I know this- we're neck deep in some serious foreign policy issues and we're due for an economic slow down after seeing growth for nearly all of President Obama's Presidency. Clinton can be accused of being "too tough" by some on the left, but on the issues of Russia, Syria, Iran, and other major foreign policy issues right now, I think the Secretary of State is more likely to make America feel at ease than Bernie Sanders. On the economy, while some on the left make knit-picky arguments against the Clinton record, the fact is that the 1990s are the gold standard for economic well-being. Her time in the Senate shows her to be a mostly mainstream Democrat on economic issues, which is exactly what I think we need to follow President Obama with. I get that Bernie Sanders polls decently right now, but he's not being attacked right now. Hillary has been attacked already. She is still right there in polls. I trust her image as better to put up against the GOP nominee than Bernie's.
2. Her policy positions are better positioned to become law- Let's be clear here, the Democrats had to jump through all sorts of hoops to enact the President's health care law, the Dodd-Frank bank regulation bill, and the Stimulus, to name a few things, and they ran Congress and the White House then. It's not likely that the Congress will swing wildly left in 2016, so things will be a bit more difficult for the Democratic President in 2017 than it was in 2009. Do you really believe a narrowly divided Congress is going to pass a $15 national minimum wage, Medicare for All, Glass-Steagall, free college for all, or many of the other ideas that Senator Sanders is putting forward? I'd question the wisdom of even wanting to, but if that's your goal, how can you honestly believe "a political revolution" will stare down Congress and make them change their minds. OFA was a pretty formidable group of grassroots volunteers, they didn't change Congress over night like that.
3. I trust her and agree with her on health care- I remember watching Hillary push for health care in the 1990s. I remember her putting forward a plan that is eerily similar to the Affordable Care Act during her 2008 run for the Presidency. I support the current Affordable Care Act, and agree with her now that we should build on that, and make it better, not toss it out and start over. Her position of incremental improvement appeals to me more than Senator Sanders' Medicare for All. It's more practical, and it's what I prefer we do.
4. I feel she's more qualified to run a White House- I think Bernie Sanders has a fine resume- Mayor, Congressman, Senator- but I like Hillary's better. I like that she was Secretary of State. I like that she represented a big state in the U.S. Senate. I like that she's been under the public microscope for more years than I've been alive, and that she's faced down some of the most vicious Republican attacks imagined. I expect the GOP to try and destroy any Democratic President. She expects that too. I think she's ready to face the fire, and run an administration.
5. I trust her more to deal with Putin, Syria, Israel, Iran, etc.- Hillary is often hit for being too hawkish by Democrats, and at times she has been (see Iraq War here). The problems in our world are not softball right now. A conquest-driven Russian President with designs of expanding his nation's influence, a brutal civil war in Syria that has given us the most savage terrorist organization we've seen yet, an Israeli leader who has challenged our friendship in his quest to abandon peace as an objective, and an Iran who is on the cusp of either rejoining the global community or falling back into an adversary's role. These are not small issues. Her work at the State Department, her tough-edged instincts, and her record working on many of the major issues that we've seen the President and her successor (John Kerry) achieve on (Iran nuclear deal, Cuba, Climate Change deals with countries all over the globe) give her a credibility that no candidate in either party has. She can handle the Commander-in-Chief role, and keep our role in the world.
6. I want to elect the first woman President- People like to act as though there is something wrong with wanting to elect the first female President. I don't. I generally despise identity politics and say that we shouldn't give points for electing people from certain groups, but women make up half of our population, but zero Presidents in our history. Do you really think we haven't had qualified, capable women, who could run this country? I tend to think there are plenty. None will have the opportunity to though until we elect one, and Hillary is qualified and right on the issues. I would like to see us push her across the finish line.
7. I agree with her record and position on guns- This has been beaten into the ground already, but there are differences between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on guns, and I agree with her voting record over his. I don't believe gun manufacturers should have immunity when their products are used in shootings. Therefore I support her there. I doubt either would push this kind of legislation as President, but she deserves points for being right.
8. I agree with her position on regulating banks- I would have never repealed Glass-Steagall, if I were President. I consider it one of President Clinton's few failings. With that said, it's gone, and frankly the old piece of legislation doesn't fit today's banking industry very well. I agree with Hillary Clinton that we should build on the successful Dodd-Frank legislation, and try to improve it to fit today's banking industry. Such "establishment" economists as Paul Krugman agree, which should be rather telling. I also don't feel that the Democratic Party should set itself up as a 100% enemy of the banking industry. We need a banking industry in this country, and we should try to work with them as a party, even if we have philosophical differences. We shouldn't support their excesses, but our rhetoric doesn't have to be "destroy them."
9. I trust her to address climate change- I actually trust both candidates on this issue to continue President Obama's advances. Hillary has an excellent record both as a Senator and as Secretary of State, and I think she will work hard to help move America's energy economy forward towards clean energy and renewables, and she will fight to lessen carbon pollution in the short to medium term.
10. I view Bill Clinton as a positive in America- Bill Clinton is not on the ballot, and Hillary should be judged on her own. With that said, I find it amazing the way some people on both the left and the right try to turn him into a negative. President Clinton was the best President in my lifetime. The economy was good, we were at peace, we made advances in education, balancing the budget, creating jobs, and having a functional, effective government. To hear some on the left tell the story, he was as bad as George W. Bush for America. To hear some on the right tell it, he should be flogged for having an affair. Bill Clinton has personal failings, like all of us. He got a couple of things wrong as President too, like any President. He is an absolute national gem though, and represents some of the best years I've seen in my life.
11. I believe she's a better image for our party and our country- I admire that Bernie Sanders has inspired people who weren't going to take part in this process. I admire that he's run a campaign based on ideas. I prefer Hillary Clinton's pragmatism and competency though to his revolution. At a time when the country is a little uneasy about it's direction, and following an incredibly consequential Presidency that saw great change, I'm not sure another revolutionary Democrat is the kind of image the country is looking for. The idea of electing a smart, strong, capable, and battle-tested woman who served in this President's cabinet to be our next leader is appealing to me. I think it's what the world should see in us. I think it's what we should see in us.
12. I support President Obama and think America has done well under him, so we don't need a revolution- I don't think we need to make America Great Again. I'm not at all unhappy with President Obama. I think we live in the greatest country in the world, and we need to stay the course that our excellent President has chartered over the past seven years. I believe his old rival, turned loyal Secretary of State, is the right mix of staying the course, making history, and bringing in a fresh perspective on the world. I think she is the perfect successor to President Obama, be it for four or eight years, and that she would provide continuity and improvement to our nation. Don't get me wrong, there are things we need to change in this country, but you can't do that all over night. I'm not a big believer in the need for a revolution right now. I think we're doing better.

That's why I want Hillary Clinton to be our next President. I think she's the best option. I have my issues with Bernie Sanders, but I like him too. I prefer her. Don't get me wrong, she has her flaws. I do think he's run a better campaign to this point. That aside though, she is the President I want us to have a year from now, and on her own merits I support her.

Wasn't That Fun?

Well, we set some records yesterday in the Lehigh Valley, I hope you enjoyed them. The Weather Channel and WFMZ both report records in the Lehigh Valley for one day of snowfall, with the Weather Channel saying Allentown received 32" of snow yesterday. This superstorm caused mayhem from Washington, DC up to Boston, with records in DC, Philadelphia, Allentown, and across the New York City region. New Jersey's shore saw record storm surges, surpassing Hurricane Sandy. Blizzard conditions were experienced in Nantucket to the north and Washington to the south. It was a truly "super" storm.

I enjoy snow days. You shovel a little, have a few cold ones, eat, spend time with family, watch some basketball, and shuffle through whatever else is on TV. At least in this case, we had SNL to get us through the night. The images of New York, Philadelphia, and Washington may have been a bit jarring to watch, but they certainly were less painful than trying to move several feet of snow out of the driveway. I'm glad I didn't try to go anywhere in this mess, at least. There's no reason to risk getting stuck or worse.

Digging out was not actually fun, by the way. I was totally kidding.

The Bernie as Obama Comparison is Tired

It's a week out from the Iowa Caucus. A candidate who has the support of his party's liberal base, a well organized ground game in Iowa, and the support of the youth vote is possibly surging past Hillary Clinton, despite her establishment support and Des Moines Register endorsement. Is it 2008? Is it Barack Obama? No to both. It's Bernie Sanders, and his supporters want you to see the similarities.

The problem is that Bernie Sanders is not Barack Obama. Forget Hillary for a minute, who is still Hillary, and let's focus on Bernie. Bernie is very different from Barack Obama. 2016 is very different from 2008. There are many things to consider-

• Despite being the grassroots favorite in 2008, it's important to note that President Obama fought his way up through the Chicago political establishment to become U.S. Senator, while Bernie Sanders has consistently turned away the Democratic establishment in Vermont on his way to being a U.S. Senator. These guys have very different political identities.
• President Obama was a unique, "first of his type" candidate as the eventual first African-American President. Bernie is hardly the first white guy, Senator to run to the left of the establishment pick. We've had Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Bill Bradley and others. Some won. Some lost.
• Yes, Republicans have called Barack Obama a socialist, communist, usurper, and all other kinds of "political slurs." President Obama is not a socialist, or any of those other things though. We can debate whether or not Bernie Sanders is, or whether or not it's a good or bad thing, but he says he's a Socialist. Republicans will do what they may with that. It's more plausible that the public will believe their characterization, given his embrace of it.
• In 2008, most of the advantages were swinging the Democrats way heading into that election. In 2016, we could face a recession, serious unrest in the Middle East, global market fears, and many domestic fights that don't necessarily swing our way.
• Barack Obama was from neighboring Illinois, and was decently well known to Iowans. He also could send loyalists into Iowa to campaign for him. Bernie Sanders does not enjoy these advantages in Iowa. He does in New Hampshire though.
• In 2008, the caucus was held while colleges were not in session, making it much more difficult for President Obama to turn out college students. He did it though. It actually should be somewhat easier for Bernie to make good on his advantage with youth, as school will be back in session.
• The 2008 race had six Democrats, with three who had a shot to win by caucus night. In 2016, there are just three Democrats running, with just two viable candidates to win. The race is shaped different.
• President Obama had a much more modest domestic agenda in 2008 than Bernie Sanders does today. He wasn't proposing "Medicare for all," free college education, a major increase in the minimum wage, or many of the other expensive items in Bernie's agenda. President Obama did have a very aggressive foreign policy agenda, but that caucus was largely contested on those grounds.

I could continue to go on and on. Yes, both were the insurgent at the time, and both were running against Hillary Clinton. That's about the end of the similarities. Bernie Sanders candidacy is entirely his own, and assuming he can do the same things Barack Obama did eight years ago ignores the obvious differences.

Championship Sunday- Your Guide to the Conference Title Games

Later on today, the top four teams in the NFL this season will meet for the right to play in Super Bowl 50. The top two seeds in the NFC, Carolina and Arizona, will meet in Charlotte in the biggest games of Carson Palmer and Cam Newton's lives. In the AFC, we get one more Brady vs. Manning Bowl in Denver, when New England seeks to repeat as AFC Champs against the 2014 champs, Denver.

What are the stories you should watch for? Here's my take:

1. Tom Brady is the best- so can he prove it again?- Let's stop the comparisons, even to Manning, because Touchdown Tommy is the man for his generation. He's won four Super Bowls, six AFC titles, and been in ten of these AFC title games. Today he adds to that legacy. Can he beat Manning in one more big game?
2. Can Larry Fitzgerald get back to the Super Bowl?- When Larry Fitzgerald goes into Canton, I'm hoping he does so as a Super Bowl champion. This is probably his best chance to do it before his career is done. Can he repeat his divisional round magic?
3. How will conditions be in Charlotte?- Charlotte missed the worst of superstorm Jonas. It still got some wintery weather, and it's not used to that. What will conditions be like?
4. Will Manning get it done?- Peyton Manning has stupid good stats in his career, except for the stat of championships. Despite quarterbacking many great teams, he has one Super Bowl title and three AFC titles. This could be it for him, and at home against New England, no less. 
5. Can Cam become elite?- Cam Newton is the MVP this season. The question is whether or not he can prove it. He won a title at Auburn, but the Super Bowl is another beast. He can take a leap forward with a win today.
6. Which great NFC Defense gets it done?- Whether you want to talk about Arizona or Carolina, these teams play "man" football. These defenses bring it each week. Who brings it today?
7. How awesome is Denver's defense?- Denver had the best defense in football this season. Today, they face Tom Brady for a title. If they win, we'll remember them for being that good. If not? They were okay.
8. Can anyone guard Gronk?- Denver's defense is that good, but Gronk isn't a human-being. Can they even slow him down?
9. Carson Palmer goes for vindication- Carson Palmer developed a reputation for not being able to win the big ones. Then he won a big one last week. If he wins today, he silences a lot of critics of his NFL career.
10. Bill Belichick- best ever?- No other coach that is coaching today has a resume like Belichick. If he wins today, it's just another win for him, sort of. With a win today, he'll be coaching in his tenth Super Bowl in two weeks, or one-fifth of them all. That's kind of ridiculous.

My picks today? Neither Carolina or Arizona convinced me last week. I thought Carolina was the best team in the league through twelve games, and I've felt the same about Arizona since. The game's in Carolina though, which makes it interesting. I'm taking Carolina 24-20, a bit of reversal for myself, but home field is big here.

I'm a huge Brady fan, but not a Manning fan at all. Setting that aside, it doesn't seem like Denver should have won the head-to-head game, or won home field, but somehow they did. That somehow was their defense. So, do I do the unthinkable and bet against Brady and Belichick, or bet against the best defense in the game, at home? I've got Denver 20-17.

I'm actually fine with either NFC team, from a point of personal preference. In the AFC, I'm pulling for New England to crush them.

As We Dig Out- The Phillies Roster Projection for 1/24/16

I know we just got a record breaking snow storm yesterday, but we're under a month from Spring Training and a return of Phillies baseball. Manager Pete Mackanin spoke this week, giving us some insights into how he sees the team developing. With such a different roster than twelve months ago, it's worth taking an updated look at this team.

Who will make the 25 man roster? The 40 man? The AAA team? That's worth a good look heading into a camp when the Phillies will bring around 60 players into camp and have the flexibility to pick any players amongst them that they like.

The Rotation
Mackanin was pretty clear about the favorites to make his rotation. Barring injuries or shockingly bad Springs, youngsters Aaron Nola and Jerad Eickhoff are locks, and newcomers Charlie Morton and Jeremy Hellickson are coming north too. Matt Harrison is not likely to come north with this team, or pitch soon, so count him out of the race for the fifth spot. One would think the race for the fifth spot is a battle between two players obtained for Ken Giles- right-handed top prospect Vincent Velasquez and left-hander Brett Oberholtzer- with Adam Morgan being in the ball game for a spot. Oberholtzer is a near lock to make the roster in some capacity, since he's out of options and left-handed, while both of the other two can be optioned to AAA. My guess is that Velasquez has the early lead for a spot, if he's adequate this Spring. I actually expect Oberholtzer to get a look in the bullpen as a swing man, and Morgan to start in AAA, unless he out-pitches Velasquez.

I don't expect Jake Thompson, Mark Appel, or Zach Eflin to get a serious look for Opening Day. All are likely to start out in AAA. If you include either Morgan or Velasquez with this group, you have four AAA starters in camp to begin with. Alec Asher would seem likely to join them. While he struggled in the Majors last year, he was solid in AAA and showed ability to get batters out. If that is the case, the IronPigs have five starters already, and it would seem that David Buchanan and Severino Gonzalez are on the outside looking in, right now. Both have 40 man spots, but I'm not sure that's the kind of advantage it would have been in years past. Obviously one of the prospects could start out in Reading (which also has a crowded rotation likely to include Ricardo Pinto, Ben Lively, Nick Pivetta, and potentially any of the other Clearwater arms from last season), or the IronPigs could go with a six man rotation (something they have done in recent years), but they will face competition there from Chris LeRoux and Reinier Roibal. I'd guess that LeRoux will start out as a swingman and Buchanan will stick around as a sixth starter.

With a full 40 man roster coming to camp, it's worth noting that Harrison and Jesse Biddle are probably bound for the 60 Day DL, opening up at least two spots on the roster. Buchanan and Gonzalez also appear to be in danger going into camp. Miguel Alfredo Gonzalez is on the major league payroll, but he's not a candidate here.

The Bullpen
No area of the team is more wide open, and includes more competitive pieces than the bullpen. Luis Garcia, Elvis Araujo, Jeanmar Gomez, and David Hernandez come to camp with major league deals, and settle in as favorites. If in fact Oberholtzer ends up here, that could leave as few as two spots available in the bullpen going in, and lots of candidates for the spots.

Edubray Ramos, Colton Murray, and Jimmy Cordero, all on the 40 man roster, appear to be bound for the minors to start out. All have very live arms, but could use a little more seasoning. With them out of the ballgame, you're looking at righties Dalier Hinojosa, Michael Mariot, and Hector Neris, and lefties Mario Hollands and Rule 5 pick Daniel Stumpf all coming to camp on the 40 man roster. Non-roster righties Andrew Bailey, Ernesto Frieri, and Edward Mujica, as well as lefty James Russell come to camp as strong candidates as well. Other non-rosterees Roibal, LeRoux, Gregory Infante, Frank Herrmann, and Greg Burke seem more likely to be trying out for a spot in the system.

I suspect the Phillies will end up giving the most serious looks to Hinojosa, Neris, Hollands, Stumpf, Bailey, Frieri, and Mujica. Of that group, I'd suspect that if Stumpf shows much in camp, he gets an advantage from his Rule 5 status. I'd guess that Bailey and Mujica will start with an edge amongst the righties as well. That could mean as many as seven 40 man roster relievers being sent to minor league camp. The minor league camp also will have Ken Roberts, Joely Rodriguez, Miguel Alfredo Gonzalez, and Joey DeNato in it. Expect AAA to have Murray, Roberts, Rodriguez, LeRoux, and at least three additional 40 man members in the pen. Expect Ramos and Cordero to start the season in AA.

If Stumpf does not make the roster, his roster spot would open up on the 40 man roster.

Catchers
If the NL were adopting the DH in 2016, I could see three making the team, but the Phillies are only likely to carry two catchers this season. Cameron Rupp appeared to take Carlos Ruiz's job as 2015 went on, but the two of them come to camp as the favorites to make the team. J.P. Arencibia comes to camp as a non-roster invitee, but he is the top contender to unseat one of them. 40 man roster member and highly rated prospect Jorge Alfaro is ticketed for Reading, while non-roster invitee prospect Andrew Knapp will probably end up in AAA. Gabriel Lino is likely to head to AAA, but this is a big camp for him to show his offense has caught up to his defensive abilities. Logan Moore will be in camp, but is mostly an organizational "filler" type.

I suspect the Phillies will end up keeping Rupp and Ruiz, and will try very hard to convince Arencibia to take an assignment to AAA to join Knapp and Lino. Alfaro and Moore will be in Reading, most likely to start out.

I could see a scenario where the Phillies end up trading Ruiz, but that seems less likely by day. With his contract in place, expect him to stick around.

Infielders
The good news is that it's likely that Maikel Franco is playing third base for a long time. Beyond that, the infield is in flux. Freddy Galvis appears to be the shortstop for Opening Day, but J.P. Crawford will be in camp this season, and could take the job by the end of the season. Cesar Hernandez appears to be the favorite to start at second base, but Galvis could end up moving over here, and Odubel Herrera could get a serious look here this Spring. Ryan Howard is nominally the starting first baseman, though it sounds like he will be in a platoon with Darin Ruf. Presuming Howard, Ruf, Hernandez, Galvis, Franco, and Andres Blanco are likely to make the team, the Phillies may not carry any more infielders. Under that scenario, Darnell Sweeney would have to have a huge camp to avoid AAA to start the season. Emmanuel Burriss, Angelys Nina, Brock Stassi, and Ryan Jackson all come to camp as well, but none is likely to break camp right now.

In AAA, expect Stassi to compete with Tommy Joseph and Jake Fox at first base. Sweeney would likely play second base, while shortstop is completely dependent on where the Phillies want to assign Crawford for Opening Day. Expect the Phillies to try and keep at least two of Nina, Jackson, and Burriss, with Nina being the strongest candidate going in.

Outfielders
Expect Odubel Herrera and Aaron Altherr to hold down regular at-bats, while Cody Asche, Peter Bourjos, and Tyler Goeddel will compete for the remaining at-bats. Expect all five of them to make the team out of camp.

Roman Quinn has a 40 man spot, but is likely bound for AAA. Nick Williams will be in camp, but expect him to start in AAA too. Cam Perkins, Brian Pointer, and Christian Marrero are likely candidates to fill out the roster.

How It Started- Hillary for America

I posted this on April 13th.

Is She a Good Candidate?

Earlier today, I lamented that Hillary Clinton is in the same position as 2008. Yesterday, I took a critical look at Bernie Sanders' candidacy. Looking over both, I guess it begs the same questions be asked about Hillary's candidacy as Bernie's- Can she win, can she govern?

Let's start with the winning part, as she would have to do so to ever govern. Hillary Clinton's electoral record does not provide a clear-cut answer here. There certainly is an argument against her ability to win. She lost in 2008's primary, and could possibly do so in 2016. Her polling with independents is down from her highs of about five years ago. Republican trumped up investigations have put her credibility in question with some portion of the electorate. She does not do as well in current polling against the Republicans as Sanders does, though that of course is tied to her taking attacks that he is not.

There are good arguments that she can win though. She is viewed as tougher on terrorism than any Republicans, Bernie, or even the President, by the public. She is viewed as competent and experienced. She was recently voted the most admired woman in America. She has been through the pressure cooker of American elections and Republican attacks. She won a tough Senate race, and contested a primary process against a President who is very popular within the Democratic Party. Her track record provides evidence that she is up to the fight. She also happens to have the most popular surrogate in America.

So this gets down to my main criteria- can she expand her base, or win over independents. Unlike with Bernie, where it will mostly be about the base, Clinton has a tougher choice to make. On the one hand, there is a solid argument to be made that a feminist appeal to women could put Clinton over the top. On the other hand, Clinton could have a better appeal to moderates and independents than President Obama, by wrapping herself in her husband's Presidential record. On the other hand, there are arguments against both of those strategies- from her currently low numbers with independents to her career long problems with the activist-left. At best, her electability is a question mark. She is probably a safe bet to eventually beat back the crazier Republican candidates, but that doesn't currently show up in polling.

Second off- can she govern. This seems much more clear to me. She was known as an effective Senator, someone that worked across the aisle, even with political enemies. She managed negotiations with world leaders across the globe on delicate matters like nuclear weapons, the environment, and the economy. She has a solid record that suggests she can achieve her goals. Some on the left would question if her goals are progressive enough, or consistent enough. Most on the right would suggest her goals aren't good for the country. I am just fine with her policy goals.

All of this leads to a conclusion that isn't obvious or clear, but isn't nearly as bad as the media would have you believe. Hillary could be an electable candidate, if her campaign gets it together and runs well. She may be anyway. She probably would do a very good job governing too. For those reasons, I'm backing her.

Politics Are Not About Your Feelings

One of the things I hear many progressives talk about when they make a decision on who to support in an election is "how it makes them feel." There is a personal quality to it, that the choice they make reflects their ideals. It's beyond real-world values, i.e. things that are tangible and concrete. It's about the ideal, the world they want. Beyond just agreeing with a list of policy statements, progressives want to feel good about their choices.

While I can respect that point of view, it's not my point of view. Politics and government are far too important for me to worry about my feelings. Decisions our elected leaders make have real-world implications on our people. It was a "small government" mentality that created an inept FEMA, which of course mattered when Katrina hit. When we "cut the size of government," actual people lose actual jobs, denying their family a paycheck. When we go to war in Iraq, actual Americans lose their lives, limbs, and mental health in the heat of battle. When we deny women access to birth control under their health insurance, we impact their lives in a very tangible way. I could go on and on, but that would beleaguer the point. The things that government does, at all levels, matter to real people. This is important stuff.

With that in mind, I really don't care "how I feel" about a candidate. Don't get me wrong, i'm not voting for an ax-murderer because he's right on the issues, but unless you're a truly bad person, I will vote my positions. If the "less progressive" candidate will win and enact most of the things I support, I will support them over a candidate who either can't win, or can't enact law. My ideal government probably won't exist during my lifetime. A government will though, and it will matter to many lives. I'll take the best deal there is for the people, even if it doesn't make me "feel better" about my purity as a political being.

Exactly One Year To Go...

Exactly one year from the moment of this article being published, President Obama will become former President Obama, and someone new will be President. That seems really weird to me. I remember living in Iowa and working the caucuses, and he was just a candidate then. It feels like yesterday that I was working on his health care initiatives for OFA, helping people in New Jersey learn more about the ACA. It feels like yesterday that we were fighting for the ACA, frankly. Despite how it feels though, it will be ending.

So at the exact seven year mark, I wanted to mark off what I believe to be his top ten achievements as President, not in order:

1. Climate Deals with China and over 200 nations- Despite a Congress who refuses to acknowledge the reality of climate change, President Obama managed to get our one economic peer to agree to limits on carbon pollution. Then his Secretary of State played a key role in getting over 200 nations to sign on to standards.
2. The Affordable Care Act- As millions of people gain health insurance through the exchanges and the regulations and benefits kick in, the much maligned health care law continues to show it's merit.
3. Two Supreme Court Judges- Justices Kagan and Sotomayor will sit on the bench beyond the tenure of the man who appointed them. While their impact on law remains to be seen, they have already been key in bringing marriage equality to the nation, and protecting the ACA.
4. Normalizing Relations With Cuba- From the time of President Kennedy until 2015, the United States and Cuba had no diplomatic relations. The embargo failed to push the Castro regime out of power for decades, to the point of being irrelevant. Now, with small changes happening on the island, the President had the vision to change our policies. It is a most historic achievement.
5. The Auto-Bailout- Today, Detroit's car scene is having it's best run in a couple of decades. The American auto-market is thriving. President Obama could have listened to Mitt Romney and not bailed out GM and others. He didn't. He was proven right.
6. Dodd-Frank- Conservatives say the banking law puts too much regulation on the banks. Liberals say not enough. Reality says they got it a lot closer to right.
7. The Iran Nuclear Deal- Tehran has given up the nuclear ambitions they were working on in earnest after President Bush dubbed them a part of the "Axis of Evil." Through tough sanctions and negotiations that produced benefits to both sides, today we are on track to a non-nuclear armed Iran.
8. The Stimulus- In 2009, it was not clear whether or not we would make it through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The President pushed through a stimulus bill that made record investments in our domestic economy, and helped us begin to grow again.
9. LGBT Equality- Whether it was ending the awful practice of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," or refusing to argue on the behalf of DOMA, President Obama will probably go down as the most LGBT-friendly President of his time.
10. Ending the Iraq War and drawing down the Afghanistan War- We can argue over tactics and timing, but not the results. The President ended the failed neo-conservative foreign policies of the last Presidency, and restored our credibility in the world.

I could have cited more stuff. I don't think I need to. Clearly this Presidency was very historic, and very consequential. One year from now, we will start a new Presidency, hopefully one that continues us on a pathway forward.

Meet the New Boss.... Same as the Old Boss

Yale Law School grad, Watergate Congressional investigation lawyer, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, United States Senator from New York, Presidential candidate with over 18 million votes, and Secretary of State. She has nearly every major endorsement in the Democratic Party and is the wife of the most popular Democrat, politician, and former President in the country. She's a world-wide respected leader. She's spent a lifetime fighting for Civil Rights, women's rights, children's rights, and progressive causes of all types.

If this wasn't Hillary Clinton, we'd be talking about the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, with no real drama to it. Yet, for some reason she's in a tight race in Iowa and New Hampshire with under two weeks to go. How does this happen again?

Advisers to Hillary Clinton, including former President Bill Clinton, believe that her campaign made serious miscalculations by forgoing early attacks on Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and failing to undercut his archliberal message before it grew into a political movement that has now put him within striking distance of beating her in Iowa and New Hampshire.

According to Democrats close to the Clintons and involved with her campaign, Mrs. Clinton and the former president are also unnerved by the possibility that Mr. Sanders will foment a large wave of first-time voters and liberals that will derail her in Iowa, not unlike Barack Obama’s success in 2008, which consigned Mrs. Clinton to a third-place finish. They have asked her advisers about the strength of the campaign’s data modeling and turnout assumptions in Iowa, given that her 2008 campaign’s predictions were so inaccurate.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. On the other hand, you are who you are. Hillary Clinton's Senate record was solidly within the mainstream of the Democratic Party, her First Lady tenure was amongst the most progressive we've seen. She served under the current Democratic President as his Secretary of State, and has been a strong defender of his record and initiatives the whole way. And yet, we're still stuck here:

“Hillary is a pragmatic progressive — she’s not an advocate,” said Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont, who last week campaigned in Iowa for Mrs. Clinton over his home-state senator Mr. Sanders. “She quietly pulls people together and gets things done. Even though that’s not in vogue right now, I think that’s what voters will want in the end.”

But Mrs. Clinton’s problems are broader than just her message: Opinion polls show that some Democrats and other voters continue to question her trustworthiness and whether she cares about their problems. Recent polls show that her once-formidable lead over Mr. Sanders in Iowa has all but vanished, while he is holding on to a slight lead over her in New Hampshire.

Right back in 2008, all over again. We're stuck arguing over whether or not she's authentic. Is it sexism? Is it puritan progressives? Is it a media that doesn't like her? We've exhausted all of these debates over the years, and we never quite come to a final answer. It may be all of the above. It may be none of the above. I don't know that it really matters. The bottom line is that she will have to beat back Bernie's momentum in these final weeks and win Iowa, or face another difficult primary contest. For whatever reason, it just can't be easy for her.