Speculation seems to be the order of the day.  So I thought I’d join in.  The question?  Which of the following is most interesting and about which we are least informed?  The contents of the Mueller Report?  Or who is the front runner for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president?  Without any real data–the actual REPORT in the case of the former and VOTES in the latter–pundits are, as Bob Dylan reminds us, just blowing in the wind.  (Query:  Does the noise from political pundits blowing in the wind cause cancer?)

While I have questioned the process by which William Barr has shared information about the Mueller Report with us, I am holding my tongue on the content until I get a chance to read it.  So today, I will take my first shot at coverage of the 2020 race for Democratic nomination.

Since March 31, the emphasis has been on fundraising by the plethora of presidential aspirants.  Much has been made about the a candidate’s total take, the average size of donations and the number of contributors.  This information is readily available as all candidates for federal office must file quarterly campaign financials with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).  Therefore, we can assume the numbers for the first quarter of 2019 are accurate.  Here are the results for the top four fundraisers.

Bernie Sanders/$18.2 million
Kamala Harris/$12.1 million
Beto O’Rourke/$9.4 million
Pete Buttigieg/$7 million

But as my late friend Michie Slaughter used to remind us, “Sometimes the things that are important are hard to measure, and the things that are easy to measure are not important.”

Which brings me to the title of today’s post.  In 1995, Texas Republican Senator Phil Gramm saw himself as the heir apparent to Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, saving the country from another four years of Bill Clinton.  He announced his candidacy immediately following the 1994 midterm elections.  In February 1995, Gramm raised $4.1 million ($6.8 million in current dollars) not in one quarter, but at one event, a dinner in Dallas which was billed in the New York Times as “one of the largest takes for a single campaign event in American political history.”  By end of his campaign one year later, Gramm’s campaign had raised and spent a total of $35.81 million ($59.4 million in current dollars).

Since there is no record of President Gramm, you know how the story ends.  What you may be too young to have experienced or too old to recall is that he abandoned his bid for the White House on February 25, 1996, just days after the first Republican votes were cast in Iowa.  Of the 96,762 caucus attendees, Gramm finished fifth with 9,055 or 9.35 percent. He clearly had not cracked the code for a successful run for president. (Historical Footnote:  Is it any surprise a man who spent $3,954 per vote in Iowa, later as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, deregulated the banking industry, an action which was largely responsible for the financial crisis of 2008?)

During a phone call with a relative this week, he asked my opinion of the Democratic candidates.  While I admitted I have no idea who will eventually end up on top, I suggested that Buttigieg was someone to watch.  When asked why, I found it hard to explain.  The closest I came was my reaction to his appearances on CNN, MSNBC and last Friday night on “Real Time with Bill Maher.”  He did not lecture or talk at me.  He did not tell me what was good for me or the country.  He talked about what he believed was important and how he felt about the future.  And his curiosity.  “I cannot help but think what things will be like in 2054 when I am the age of the current incumbent.”  When asked by religious skeptic Maher whether there was a conflict between his pursuit of knowledge and his faith, Mayor Pete replied, “Do you think you’ve figured it all out?  I haven’t.”  Even a devout agnostic can live with that.

Phil Gramm’s campaign had just the opposite experience.  According to the New York Times, “Internal campaign memorandums suggest that even with a huge budget for television commercials, Mr. Gramm had image problems with the voters.”  It became known as the “Yuck” factor, a reference to a story about his wife Wendy’s initial reaction upon meeting her future spouse.

After four years of cringing every time Donald Trump appears on television, maybe all we are looking for is someone with whom we are comfortable.  I have no idea how you measure that.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP