Gray Champion Predictions

[GeekyCynic]

I simply can’t see Biden playing the GC role considering how much he represents the old neoliberal status-quo that people were tired of in 2016 and this helped give rise to a demagogue like Trump. I also think he is simply too past his prime and Silent in temperament to play the role of GC. Bernie on the other hand does have some Prophet-like traits and could’ve possibly played the role.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-12-2020, 01:11 PM)GeekyCynic Wrote: I simply can’t see Biden playing the GC role considering how much he represents the old neoliberal status-quo that people were tired of in 2016 and this helped give rise to a demagogue like Trump. I also think he is simply too past his prime and Silent in temperament to play the role of GC. Bernie on the other hand does have some Prophet-like traits and could’ve possibly played the role.

Yah.  Biden wasn't my choice either.  If he is as stubborn as Trump, set in his unraveling pattern, unwilling to listen to a younger more proactive team, he is going to fail.  If he sees the times are putting problems on him that can't be solved by the unraveling playbook, if he listens, he might do.

We'll just have to see.  Still, he has an easy act to follow.

[GeekyCynic]

Biden is already showing signs of cognitive decline, so I don’t know if he will be able to serve more than one term and his cabinet and advisors will probably be making most of the major decisions in his administration. Hopefully he will pick a good VP who can take over if he’s not up for it physically or mentally in 2024.

[User3451]

(07-11-2020, 11:59 AM)TnT Wrote:

(07-11-2020, 06:48 AM)David Horn Wrote: This is certainly true.  Actions will determine the result.  To be honest, Trump is a potential GC.  Neither of us appreciate the change he wants to create, but he's all change, that's for sure. 

If the Trumpists prevail, the 1T "consensus" could indeed be authoritarianism.

Au contraire, I think we'll see authoritarianism from the "left"

Trump is done. The extremists on the other side are taking over

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-12-2020, 08:34 PM)User3451 Wrote:

(07-11-2020, 11:59 AM)TnT Wrote:

(07-11-2020, 06:48 AM)David Horn Wrote: This is certainly true.  Actions will determine the result.  To be honest, Trump is a potential GC.  Neither of us appreciate the change he wants to create, but he's all change, that's for sure. 

If the Trumpists prevail, the 1T "consensus" could indeed be authoritarianism.

Au contraire, I think we'll see authoritarianism from the "left"

Trump is done. The extremists on the other side are taking over

Crises are known for strong government, solving the problem at hand, and putting the common good way ahead of personal goals.  Yes, you got "authoritarianism" in past crises.  This mellowed in the high.  On some issues, especially related to the virus, we might echo that if you count enforcing isolation as authoritarian.  The problem will be solved.

Is putting other's lives ahead of personal and trivial discomfort authoritarianism?  Is it a terrible abuse of power to force people to honor one way corridors in order to maintain social distancing?

On other things, such as police racial violence, you will be reducing abuse of authority.

I tend to agree on Trump.

[pbrower2a]

(07-12-2020, 08:34 PM)User3451 Wrote:

(07-11-2020, 11:59 AM)TnT Wrote:

(07-11-2020, 06:48 AM)David Horn Wrote: This is certainly true.  Actions will determine the result.  To be honest, Trump is a potential GC.  Neither of us appreciate the change he wants to create, but he's all change, that's for sure. 

If the Trumpists prevail, the 1T "consensus" could indeed be authoritarianism.

Au contraire, I think we'll see authoritarianism from the "left"

Trump is done. The extremists on the other side are taking over

I see the Lincoln Project, and it seems to see Donald Trump as a disgrace for abandoning old decencies that one used to associate with conservatism. I can almost predict that the Left will go too far, that it will usher plenty of weak intellects and moral failures into public life, and that it will hold assumptions that just do not hold true. 

The Tea Party demagogues and hucksters had their way and they have shown how unfit they are as leaders. 

The American Left seems to have rejected Marxism. Do you see any calls for the nationalization of industry? Do you see images of Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, or Che Guevara?

[Eric the Green]

(07-12-2020, 07:11 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-11-2020, 11:48 AM)User3451 Wrote: It doesn't matter if the VP is a woman. It shouldn't have any bearing. Just because someone is a man has nothing to do with "the patriarchy"

It should be the best candidate. 

How many qualified people were there really? Besides Warren, Biden and Sanders?

Hopefully Biden chooses Warren. If he goes with Harris we will go back to the bush/Clinton 3T

You fail to see the immense power of symbolism.  This isn't really about who can row the boat better.  It's about who can stand at the helm and inspire others to row as if their lives depend on it.

Somehow I think Susan Rice can fill the bill, just watching and listening to her to some extent.

At least she has "the stars" on her side, indicating talent.

Someone recommended that I look her up. Most people I look at fall short. Sometimes I hit the jackpot.

If course there are a few others around who could do it, but none of them are being considered for vice-president.

[David Horn]

(07-12-2020, 11:22 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-11-2020, 11:59 AM)TnT Wrote:

(07-11-2020, 06:48 AM)David Horn Wrote: This is certainly true.  Actions will determine the result.  To be honest, Trump is a potential GC.  Neither of us appreciate the change he wants to create, but he's all change, that's for sure. 

If the Trumpists prevail, the 1T "consensus" could indeed be authoritarianism.

I am dubious.  During the 3T, there is supposed to be a intense and seemingly endless debate which defines and refines the old and the new values. This time, the red is the old and the blue the new.  There is a bad president that demonstrates why the old values are really really bad.  There is a grey champion who then leads in implementing the new.  From the way the crisis issues are going, I don't see the old values winning out.  Trump is apt to join Buchanan and Hoover in showing a failure of the old values.  We'll see if the power of the times forces Biden to grow.

This is less so this time. Trump, for all his faults, is not the standard bearer of the old GOP. He's an isolationist (not a common position since the 1950s). For the rich, he's an extreme libertarian. For the rest of us, he's an authoritarian. He's not quite a Fascist, since actually commanding people to do things is not his shtick. He's totally different, yet he has the party by the neck.

So we have two competing change modalities instead of the typical one. I think we can agree that the old GOP is dead by choice, so we get change T or change B. All bets are on change B. The Biden change had better be a lot more than cheap talk and eyewash, or it may be change T without Trump in 2024.

[David Horn]

(07-12-2020, 01:11 PM)GeekyCynic Wrote: I simply can’t see Biden playing the GC role considering how much he represents the old neoliberal status-quo that people were tired of in 2016 and this helped give rise to a demagogue like Trump. I also think he is simply too past his prime and Silent in temperament to play the role of GC. Bernie on the other hand does have some Prophet-like traits and could’ve possibly played the role.

There is some truth there, and it worries me too.

[David Horn]

(07-12-2020, 08:34 PM)User3451 Wrote:

(07-11-2020, 11:59 AM)TnT Wrote:

(07-11-2020, 06:48 AM)David Horn Wrote: This is certainly true.  Actions will determine the result.  To be honest, Trump is a potential GC.  Neither of us appreciate the change he wants to create, but he's all change, that's for sure. 

If the Trumpists prevail, the 1T "consensus" could indeed be authoritarianism.

Au contraire, I think we'll see authoritarianism from the "left"

Trump is done. The extremists on the other side are taking over

The extremists on the left have never been very effective at doing anything other than gaining attention. Unless your idea of extreme is anything to the left of the pre-Nixon era, which is almost a given.  FWIW, I don't see a lot of that as extreme at all.  After 40 years of retrenchment, with the last 4 years being truly extreme on the right, real change is needed ... even demanded.

When serious journalists start comparing the current meat and poultry industry to the one depicted by Upton Sinclair in The Jungle, you know major fixes need to happen and fast.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-13-2020, 11:46 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-12-2020, 08:34 PM)User3451 Wrote:

(07-11-2020, 11:59 AM)TnT Wrote:

(07-11-2020, 06:48 AM)David Horn Wrote: This is certainly true.  Actions will determine the result.  To be honest, Trump is a potential GC.  Neither of us appreciate the change he wants to create, but he's all change, that's for sure. 

If the Trumpists prevail, the 1T "consensus" could indeed be authoritarianism.

Au contraire, I think we'll see authoritarianism from the "left"

Trump is done. The extremists on the other side are taking over

The extremists on the left have never been very effective at doing anything other than gaining attention. Unless your idea of extreme is anything to the left of the pre-Nixon era, which is almost a given.  FWIW, I don't see a lot of that as extreme at all.  After 40 years of retrenchment, with the last 4 years being truly extreme on the right, real change is needed ... even demanded.

When serious journalists start comparing the current meat and poultry industry to the one depicted by Upton Sinclair in The Jungle, you know major fixes need to happen and fast.

Gathering the attention of the politicians is often enough these days.  If you make it clear that the majority of the people will vote those fighting change out, that is enough.  Note the Black Lives Matter movement.  Note that people value lives over the economy, that even before people came to realize you aren’t going to restart the economy before beating the but, the governors out to save lives were more popular than the happy talkers.  Note that major legislation is the accepted way of change in the Information Age, that starting a crisis war is virtually obsolete.

The basic drivers of the conservative era?  In buying the black vote, LBJ didn’t count on the racist vote being the more potent.  The voters willfully ended Americas greatness to put the minorities in their place, and thus ended the progressive period.  There was also an element of future shock.  Too much was changed too fast.  There was a retrenchment that nothing else was going to change.

By bringing the racists into the open, by creating an atmosphere where the KKK and Neo Nazi could protest in the open again, the long simmering drive towards equality reawakened again.  By the existence of a problem in COVID 19 that has to be solved in the short term, the folly of not solving problems and the science that says the problems exist is made clear.

I’m seeing the future shock has worn off.  We are ready to change again.  I see the population as no longer willing to tolerate the racist violence habitual among some police.  The racist vote has mellowed somewhat, and no longer ought weighs the black vote.  Thus, the major drivers of the conservative era have run their course.

This web forum attracts among other things violent conservative viewpoints.  There are people who see the cycles as a chance to support violence and autocratic values.  This does not mesh with my basic view of the theory.  Every four score and seven years, a new birth of freedom.  I can see how the Republicans can push the idea that a small government with small taxes can slow down change, but there are some problems which eventually have to be solved.  It’s that time again.  The unravelling created and defined the break between the old and new values.  I don’t see the old values as prevailing, believing that putting off solving the real problems will end the problems.  It is time again for a real change.

[David Horn]

(07-14-2020, 06:30 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: This web forum attracts among other things violent conservative viewpoints.  There are people who see the cycles as a chance to support violence and autocratic values.  This does not mesh with my basic view of the theory.  Every four score and seven years, a new birth of freedom.  I can see how the Republicans can push the idea that a small government with small taxes can slow down change, but there are some problems which eventually have to be solved.  It’s that time again.  The unravelling created and defined the break between the old and new values.  I don’t see the old values as prevailing, believing that putting off solving the real problems will end the problems.  It is time again for a real change.

There will always be a fascination with total liberty. It's unworkable; we know that from the last 40 years of trying so hard to get there. Nonetheless, it's a vision that fits the American spirit -- smart, stupid or otherwise. Granted, the neoliberal experiment failed yet again, as it did in the first Gilded Age. Like all zombies, it just keeps ambling on and eating brains. There is an audience that's fixated on it.

The question that needs answering: will the scales fall from enough eyes to allow that zombie to be chained in the closet for another 40-50 years, so progress can be achieved and take hold? Winning a brief victory will be satisfying, but totally inadequate to address the mess we're in and the fall-out that will come from fixing it. The virus is a huge challenge, but so is AGW... and racism ... and inequality ... and the rising threat of China.

So exiting the 4T successfully means a lot of things have to go right. The last 4T presented a similar challenge, and the success was limited to winning the war and jump-starting the economy. Those are far from trivial, but only a true win for the wealthy, merely adequate for non-wealthy whites and a let down for all others.

[pbrower2a]

(07-13-2020, 11:46 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-12-2020, 08:34 PM)User3451 Wrote:

(07-11-2020, 11:59 AM)TnT Wrote:

(07-11-2020, 06:48 AM)David Horn Wrote: This is certainly true.  Actions will determine the result.  To be honest, Trump is a potential GC.  Neither of us appreciate the change he wants to create, but he's all change, that's for sure. 

If the Trumpists prevail, the 1T "consensus" could indeed be authoritarianism.

Au contraire, I think we'll see authoritarianism from the "left"

Trump is done. The extremists on the other side are taking over

The extremists on the left have never been very effective at doing anything other than gaining attention. Unless your idea of extreme is anything to the left of the pre-Nixon era, which is almost a given.  FWIW, I don't see a lot of that as extreme at all.  After 40 years of retrenchment, with the last 4 years being truly extreme on the right, real change is needed ... even demanded.

Big, meaningful change is possible without destroying capitalism and free markets. If anything, if one really did smash an elite that had adopted feudal means of command and control, one would need to replace the authoritarian economy with something as close as possible to a free-market order. It would be necessary to unleash small business (which exists in restrained interstices of a monopolistic society) to thrive in the wreckage of defunct behemoths. 

Marxism (and especially Marxism-Leninism) is of course an infamous, catastrophic failure both at bringing any real democracy and at giving a jump start to economic development.  We don't need a body count except to fend off despots, and we will blame the despots for the body count. We don't need mass killings of 'enemies of the people', 'wreckers', and 'running dogs of the imperialists', either. We need no images of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, etc., to 'inspire' us. Marxism-Leninism failed because it had no use for the checks and balances of legal precedent for administration, free and competitive elections to ensure that the political bosses are responsible, or a market to decide what succeeds and what fails. Central planning looks good on the surface, but in the end it churns out stuff that nobody wants because it is made on the cheap (and thus shoddy) or after it has become hideously obsolete. Marxism-Leninism establishes the dictatorship of the proletariat, itself a contradiction because any prole who becomes a leader or otherwise does something remarkable is no longer a prole... and because an administrative elite that faces no consequences for failure except for inadequate loyalty to the regime can become just as rapacious and demanding as plutocrats and aristocrats. Marxists promised the classless society because nobody owns the means of production -- but ignored the capacity of bureaucrats and political hacks to take whatever they want so long as nobody is able to say "no", let alone "Hell, no!" to them.   

Quote:When serious journalists start comparing the current meat and poultry industry to the one depicted by Upton Sinclair in The Jungle, you know major fixes need to happen and fast.

As is typical of a society in a 3T (or trying to resume a 3T), we have been doing many things on the cheap -- of course at the expense of workers, renters, environmental protection, and of course climate. When profit is the only virtue that the economic and political elites recognize, all else goes sour. 

At one point we had epidemics of COVID-19 in the meat and poultry industry because the packing houses have had crowded workplaces in which workers are obliged to sacrifice their personal hygiene for maximal profit through minimal cost. Early this year, pork was about as cheap as vegetables... that is over. 

We are seeing the consequences of profits over all else... one of those is vulnerability to a pandemic.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-14-2020, 01:22 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-14-2020, 06:30 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: This web forum attracts among other things violent conservative viewpoints.  There are people who see the cycles as a chance to support violence and autocratic values.  This does not mesh with my basic view of the theory.  Every four score and seven years, a new birth of freedom.  I can see how the Republicans can push the idea that a small government with small taxes can slow down change, but there are some problems which eventually have to be solved.  It’s that time again.  The unravelling created and defined the break between the old and new values.  I don’t see the old values as prevailing, believing that putting off solving the real problems will end the problems.  It is time again for a real change.

There will always be a fascination with total liberty.  It's unworkable; we know that from the last 40 years of trying so hard to get there. Nonetheless, it's a vision that fits the American spirit -- smart, stupid or otherwise.  Granted, the neoliberal experiment failed yet again, as it did in the first Gilded Age.  Like all zombies, it just keeps ambling on and eating brains. There is an audience that's fixated on it.

The question that needs answering: will the scales fall from enough eyes to allow that zombie to be chained in the closet for another 40-50 years, so progress can be achieved and take hold?  Winning a brief victory will be satisfying, but totally inadequate to address the mess we're in and the fall-out that will come from fixing it.  The virus is a huge challenge, but so is AGW... and racism ... and inequality ... and the rising threat of China.

So exiting the 4T successfully means a lot of things have to go right.  The last 4T presented a similar challenge, and the success was limited to winning the war and jump-starting the economy. Those are far from trivial, but only a true win for the wealthy, merely adequate for non-wealthy whites and a let down for all others.

And yet, it kicked off the progressive era. If America was great, it was then. The great problems of the crisis have always been solved.

Sure, the turnings are going to hit unravelling again. We will get selfish again. Things will look bad and be bad again. The slavery compromises are enough that the elites will be dominant again.

The Agricultural Age was bad. Since, we could only solve a few problems per crisis. No, we are not apt to end the cycles this time around, to solve the last crisis. We don't know how much we will address this early in, and how much will have to wait for the next transformation.

Again, let's not be disappointed in advance. The change is always greater than it looks like going in.

[David Horn]

(07-15-2020, 09:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: And yet, it kicked off the progressive era.  If America was great, it was then.  The great problems of the crisis have always been solved.

Sure, the turnings are going to hit unravelling again.  We will get selfish again.  Things will look bad and be bad again.  The slavery compromises are enough that the elites will be dominant again.

The Agricultural Age was bad.  Since, we could only solve a few problems per crisis.  No, we are not apt to end the cycles this time around, to solve the last crisis.  We don't know how much we will address this early in, and how much will have to wait for the next transformation.

Again, let's not be disappointed in advance.  The change is always greater than it looks like going in.

The unique problem this time is the interwoven nature of the crises.  AGW must be addressed if anything else is to succeed, but so must the social stresses trying to tear us apart.  If we're at each other throats, nothing will advance.  COVID may actually be the least problem, though the total lack o preparation for the pandemic and the economic fallout still makes the cut.  IN short, we need to remove the rot and rebuild a lot of societal structure while solving multiple crises at the same time. There's a great visual of that:

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-15-2020, 10:19 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-15-2020, 09:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: And yet, it kicked off the progressive era.  If America was great, it was then.  The great problems of the crisis have always been solved.

Sure, the turnings are going to hit unravelling again.  We will get selfish again.  Things will look bad and be bad again.  The slavery compromises are enough that the elites will be dominant again.

The Agricultural Age was bad.  Since, we could only solve a few problems per crisis.  No, we are not apt to end the cycles this time around, to solve the last crisis.  We don't know how much we will address this early in, and how much will have to wait for the next transformation.

Again, let's not be disappointed in advance.  The change is always greater than it looks like going in.

The unique problem this time is the interwoven nature of the crises.  AGW must be addressed if anything else is to succeed, but so must the social stresses trying to tear us apart.  If we're at each other throats, nothing will advance.  COVID may actually be the least problem, though the total lack o preparation for the pandemic and the economic fallout still makes the cut.  IN short, we need to remove the rot and rebuild a lot of societal structure while solving multiple crises at the same time.

COVID 19 may not be the largest problem, but it might well put the right people in charge and prove to a lot of people that you cannot ignore problems be wishing them away. It may lead other problems to be addressed that are not yet being addressed beyond campaign promises.

[jleagans]

(07-13-2020, 12:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-12-2020, 07:11 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-11-2020, 11:48 AM)User3451 Wrote: It doesn't matter if the VP is a woman. It shouldn't have any bearing. Just because someone is a man has nothing to do with "the patriarchy"

It should be the best candidate. 

How many qualified people were there really? Besides Warren, Biden and Sanders?

Hopefully Biden chooses Warren. If he goes with Harris we will go back to the bush/Clinton 3T

You fail to see the immense power of symbolism.  This isn't really about who can row the boat better.  It's about who can stand at the helm and inspire others to row as if their lives depend on it.

Somehow I think Susan Rice can fill the bill, just watching and listening to her to some extent.

At least she has "the stars" on her side, indicating talent.

Someone recommended that I look her up. Most people I look at fall short. Sometimes I hit the jackpot.

If course there are a few others around who could do it, but none of them are being considered for vice-president.

Love that you looked up Rice and her stars are good, definitely looking likely to be VP and President in short order.

[David Horn]

(07-15-2020, 11:32 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-15-2020, 10:19 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-15-2020, 09:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: And yet, it kicked off the progressive era.  If America was great, it was then.  The great problems of the crisis have always been solved.

Sure, the turnings are going to hit unravelling again.  We will get selfish again.  Things will look bad and be bad again.  The slavery compromises are enough that the elites will be dominant again.

The Agricultural Age was bad.  Since, we could only solve a few problems per crisis.  No, we are not apt to end the cycles this time around, to solve the last crisis.  We don't know how much we will address this early in, and how much will have to wait for the next transformation.

Again, let's not be disappointed in advance.  The change is always greater than it looks like going in.

The unique problem this time is the interwoven nature of the crises.  AGW must be addressed if anything else is to succeed, but so must the social stresses trying to tear us apart.  If we're at each other throats, nothing will advance.  COVID may actually be the least problem, though the total lack o preparation for the pandemic and the economic fallout still makes the cut.  IN short, we need to remove the rot and rebuild a lot of societal structure while solving multiple crises at the same time.

COVID 19 may not be the largest problem, but it might well put the right people in charge and prove to a lot of people that you cannot ignore problems be wishing them away.  It may lead other problems to be addressed that are not yet being addressed beyond campaign promises.

Let's hope so.  We haven't had a good run of effective leaders since Reagan, and his leadership is not to my taste to say the least.  Since then, we've wobbled around and played gotcha.  Even big things have been small: GWB's Medicare Part D and the ACA being notably lacking.  Better should be easy to achieve.

[David Horn]

(08-07-2020, 12:50 AM)jleagans Wrote:

(07-13-2020, 12:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-12-2020, 07:11 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-11-2020, 11:48 AM)User3451 Wrote: It doesn't matter if the VP is a woman. It shouldn't have any bearing. Just because someone is a man has nothing to do with "the patriarchy"

It should be the best candidate. 

How many qualified people were there really? Besides Warren, Biden and Sanders?

Hopefully Biden chooses Warren. If he goes with Harris we will go back to the bush/Clinton 3T

You fail to see the immense power of symbolism.  This isn't really about who can row the boat better.  It's about who can stand at the helm and inspire others to row as if their lives depend on it.

Somehow I think Susan Rice can fill the bill, just watching and listening to her to some extent.

At least she has "the stars" on her side, indicating talent.

Someone recommended that I look her up. Most people I look at fall short. Sometimes I hit the jackpot.

If course there are a few others around who could do it, but none of them are being considered for vice-president.

Love that you looked up Rice and her stars are good, definitely looking likely to be VP and President in short order.

I can't see Rice as POTUS, because I doubt she can herself.  She's talented, but she'll have to be a Trumanesque figure to turn that into policy and progress in general.  She's a wonk, not a politician.

[Eric the Green]

(08-07-2020, 11:13 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-07-2020, 12:50 AM)jleagans Wrote:

(07-13-2020, 12:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-12-2020, 07:11 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(07-11-2020, 11:48 AM)User3451 Wrote: It doesn't matter if the VP is a woman. It shouldn't have any bearing. Just because someone is a man has nothing to do with "the patriarchy"

It should be the best candidate. 

How many qualified people were there really? Besides Warren, Biden and Sanders?

Hopefully Biden chooses Warren. If he goes with Harris we will go back to the bush/Clinton 3T

You fail to see the immense power of symbolism.  This isn't really about who can row the boat better.  It's about who can stand at the helm and inspire others to row as if their lives depend on it.

Somehow I think Susan Rice can fill the bill, just watching and listening to her to some extent.

At least she has "the stars" on her side, indicating talent.

Someone recommended that I look her up. Most people I look at fall short. Sometimes I hit the jackpot.

If course there are a few others around who could do it, but none of them are being considered for vice-president.

Love that you looked up Rice and her stars are good, definitely looking likely to be VP and President in short order.

I can't see Rice as POTUS, because I doubt she can herself.  She's talented, but she'll have to be a Trumanesque figure to turn that into policy and progress in general.  She's a wonk, not a politician.

The "stars" say otherwise. She does a lot of stump speaking. She doesn't come across as a wonk. She has presence and bearing, and generates confidence.

Your former governor is even better. And Mitch Landrieu is the best. Assuming Biden wins in 2020, some very talented Democratic politicians will have to step up for 2024, or our 4T will likely fail, because the challenger will have a leg up in that election. The best thing Biden can do is pick the best among his choices who could step up to the role. That's Susan Rice, and the worst choice would be Kamala Harris. If the Republicans get back in in 2024, then we just reverse everything and go back to square one, and all the problems fester.

The Republicans actually have a rising star, which I saw on TV recently. Until now their best prospect was a right-wing idiot trumper from Arkansas, Tom Cotton from the cotton lands. But Utah is a state that votes Republican nationally, but sometimes Democratic locally. They had a moderate Republican politician who ran for president a while back, Jon Huntsman. Now they have Spencer Cox, their next governor. He has a 15-2 score on my system. I looked him up because he seemed to have some personal power and heft, some positive charm, and was quite articulate. That's a winning combo for a politician. So, watch for him in the future. He was not going along with the Trump line on mail-in voting, which he is in charge of in Utah, but seemed quite intelligent. Not the change agent we need, I'm sure, but when people are ready for a stable leader, the next Ike, who may not just reverse advances made by Democrats, he may be the guy. That would be better than that young Trump power couple we all know.