On to New Hampshire

Doubt my wisdom is much different than the conventional wisdom, but here goes:

Go home, folks. Mike Huckabee has suspended his campaign, and good riddance. He can go back to selling patent medicines or whatever it is he does in between campaigns. Rick Santorum isn't going to be president in any world we know. Jim Gilmore barely made it onto the stage. The only candidate in the bottom tier that I really liked is Carly Fiorina, but in the end she wasn't able to turn early momentum into something sustainable. I suspect we'll be hearing from her again, but as a surrogate for one of the other candidates.

Big Christie vs. Karate Kasich. These two candidates got bupkis in Iowa, but both have a chance to keep their campaigns going in New Hampshire. Only one will survive. Of the two, I'd pick Christie, but in the long run he's really running for Attorney General. Kasich has gotten endorsements from approximately 4,387 publications in New Hampshire, but it's difficult to see a path forward for him unless he wins New Hampshire outright, which isn't likely to happen.

It's my turn! Jeb Bush has enough money to keep going all the way to the convention, but he really ought to go home. He's not going to overtake his protege turned nemesis Marco Rubio. Deep down, I suspect he knows this, but I don't think he'll go away quietly or graciously. Too bad, really.

Voices heard, but not heeded. Rand Paul did get a delegate, but that's about all he got. He's not going to make it and probably should start tending to his campaign to return to the Senate. Depending on what happens in the next four years, he may have another opening later on. Ben Carson is a wonderful man, but he's not going to make it.

Rubio rising. Marco Rubio is certainly a viable candidate after finishing strongly last night. His speech sounded like a victory speech. It's a bit presumptuous, but he's certainly moved past Bush, Christie and Kasich in the "establishment lane." He's the most talented politician in the field, but he's got a lot of work to do to convince people he's not a squish. If he holds off Kasich and Christie in New Hampshire, he's got a chance to go a long way.

Classy and huge. The invincible Trump wasn't invincible after all, at least in Iowa. He threw the kitchen sink at Ted Cruz, but in the end was not able to turn his rock star crowds into enough caucus attendees to win. If I were Trump, I'd be very nervous about Rubio at this point. It will be interesting to see if he turns his invective machine in Rubio's direction, and away from Cruz, at least for the next week or so.

Cruzin'. Ted Cruz wins Iowa, turning his superior organization and some key endorsements into a narrow victory. The most significant thing about his win is that he campaigned against ethanol subsidies and still won anyway. If he can make a decent showing in New Hampshire, he'll stick around and have a chance to do well in the South. Certainly a contender.

Bern and Hill. Now that Martin O'Malley has dropped out, it's between an ancient socialist and Lady Blackberry Albatross for the Happy Days Are Here Again side of the aisle. Mrs. Clinton has the hellhounds on her trail at this point and if she gets crushed in New Hampshire, as seems likely, it will be interesting to see how things shake out. Bernie Sanders is not going to be president under any circumstances, but if he wounds Clinton sufficiently over the next few weeks, you can expect to see a lot more of Joe Biden.

Trouble in River City

It's going to be an interesting experiment, that's for sure:

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump abruptly announced here Tuesday that he would not participate in Thursday’s scheduled debate, escalating his off-and-on feud with Fox News Channel and throwing the GOP campaign into turmoil.

Turmoil! Consternation! Trouble right here in River City!

I'm gonna be perfectly frank.
Would ya like to know what kinda conversation goes
On while they're loafin' around that Hall?

So the show is going on with The Donald. A few thoughts:

• Trump is assuming he's such a huge part of the show that no one will watch without him. Perhaps he's right, but I'm not so sure about that. The national polling suggests that, while he continues to have a plurality of votes on the Republican side, he hasn't closed the deal by any means. The highest numbers I've seen suggests that he gets 40%. That's not enough. And it's worth remembering that, once we get past Iowa and New Hampshire, many of the later primaries aren't open primaries, so rank and file Republicans will be doing the voting. I'm not convinced that these Republicans are inclined to support Trump. He still has to make that sale.
• The stated reason for Trump's decision is that Fox News will once again use Megyn Kelly as a debate moderator. Trump and Kelly had a nasty dustup following an earlier debate. Kelly does ask tough questions and she does have a pretty good sneer going on. Trump thinks Kelly is not fair to him. Well, hell -- if anyone understands that the world is not fair, it ought to be Donald Trump. Fox also understands that if it were to dump Kelly at this point, it would be a complete capitulation. The network had to stand behind Kelly. It was the right move.
• If Fox is smart, they'll borrow Clint Eastwood's empty chair and put it where Trump was supposed to be.
• Of course, the other candidates are happy, because they get a chance to address the country without having The Donald on the stage. Jeb Bush alone is likely to avoid half the flop sweat we've seen in earlier skirmishes.
• The candidate I want to see is Rand Paul, who is back on the main stage after missing the last debate. He should have more room to maneuver and he could be a big factor. 

For another take, check out Brad Carlson's piece this morning.

Debate

I saw a good chunk of it, but not all. Quick impressions:

• Trump is still winning. I'm hardly enamored of him, but he projects an aura of leadership that no one else on the stage can match. I don't know if that's what people will want in the end, but it has undeniable appeal. His deft use of 9-11 to deal with Cruz's "New York values" gaffe was the most masterful moment of this cycle. He saw the hanging curve ball and drove it into the third deck. I'm not so crazy about his apparent willingness to start a trade war, among other things.
• Cruz probably shut down the birther nonsense. He also took a lot of shots from the other candidates, especially Rubio, and didn't handle his exchange with Trump well, as mentioned above. He's in good shape.
• The more I see of Rubio, the less I like him. He's a talent, but he doesn't seem ready to be President.
• Christie is the only other guy on the stage who seems even remotely plausible. I still don't like him for a number of reasons, but he'll probably do well in New Hampshire, and we'll see after that.
• Carson needs to go home now. Bush should have gone home months ago, but he's still got a lot of other people's money left to waste. I'm not sure why Kasich was even on the stage, although it's nice to know that he knew Strom Thurmond, who ran for president in 1948. No word on whether he also knew Henry Wallace or Thomas Dewey.

Debate post-mortem

I saw nearly all of the debate this time. Impressions:

• Jeb Bush's campaign is dead but too dumb to lie down. He flubbed both his opening and closing statements and while he clearly came prepared to match Donald Trump insult for insult, Trump flicked him away without a second thought. He doesn't project strength, or depth, or much of anything. At this point it seems the only reason his campaign goes on is that he has a lot of advisers who are drawing handsome salaries and they intend to bleed the donors dry. The money will dry up soon, though.
• John Kasich was a little less dyspeptic last night than he has been in previous debates, but I'm still not sure why he's even bothering. He's a contrarian and a charmless one at that. His applause lines generate crickets. I hear he's from Ohio, though.
• While I like Carly Fiorina a lot, she's getting diminishing returns at this point. I don't sense she broke any new ground. She played the Margaret Thatcher card; why wouldn't she? She's certainly more Margaret Thatcher than Margaret Dumont, but that's what we call damning with faint praise. I don't see where she goes from here.
• Ben Carson is clearly a great guy and I am certain he could teach all of us many things, but he's not going to be president. I don't see a path forward for him, either.
• I don't know if the money will run out for Rand Paul, but I hope he stays in the race. I don't see him having a way forward, either, but by offering a contrarian view of foreign policy generally, and military policy in particular, he provided a useful service in the debate. It's not a given that spending a lot more money on defense is the right answer. We do need to think long and hard about the failures of nation building and whether a return to a more neoconservative approach is proper. Paul is asking the right questions.
• My hunch is that Chris Christie made the most progress yesterday. The standard objections apply in his case, but his demeanor seems better suited for the moment than just about everyone else on the stage. I suspect he'll move up and will contend in New Hampshire.
• Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz were going at it hammer and tong throughout much of the debate. On an intellectual level, Cruz seems far superior, but Rubio is a far more appealing politician. While the provenance of the Gang of Eight is a relevant consideration to the Republican primary electorate, I'm not convinced it will matter very much in the general election. What happened at the beginning of 2013 matters quite a lot less than what is happening now. In some important ways, Cruz is closer to Rand Paul's approach, while Rubio has become significantly more bellicose as the campaign goes on. I suspect both of these guys will be in the race for a while.
• Then we have our man Trump, candidate as performance artist. No one laid a glove on him yesterday. He will continue to throw out substance-free assertions as long as he can get by with it and I don't see anyone who can force him to be specific -- Hugh Hewitt tried with his questions about the triad, but Trump just blew the question off. We'll be tough and great, apparently, if Trump is at the helm. As that noted political savant Baron von Raschke would say, that is all the people need to know. Personally, I'd like to know a lot more but I'm doubtful we'll hear details any time soon.

In the end, I don't think yesterday changed much. How did you see things? Did you see it? Let me know in the comments.

Debate tomorrow

It's time for yet another presidential debate on the Republican side. The timing is actually good, too, because the campaign has become stale and we need a shakeup. A few observations:

Donald Trump is tiresome and some of his supporters are even worse. I get this vibe from his campaign lately:

"We're gonna show that stupid GOPe!" Sure you are, kids.

Ted Cruz is now second in Iowa. He's an improvement from Trump, but I still wonder about his electability in the general election. I also would like someone with executive experience, but Trump has mostly cleared the field of candidates who have that credential (Walker, Jindal, Perry).

My sense on Marco Rubio is that he's simply too callow to be president. I like vision and soaring rhetoric as much as the next guy, but there's a thin line between inspiration and boilerplate.

Ben Carson is a good man who has no business being president. He's not going to make it and I get the sense he knows it, too.

Jeb Bush is still hanging around on the fringes, hoping that somehow he can can find a way to catch the prize as the others fall. If he were everyone's second pick, that might be plausible. He's not.

I still like Carly Fiorina, but the only time you see her in this campaign is on the debate stage. Until she demonstrates that she can remain visible, she won't be a factor. My guess is that's too late.

At this point, the guy who might have the most upside in the election is Chris Christie. It's difficult to forgive him for his behavior at the end of the 2012 cycle, but he's pretty good on the stump and he can be effective in debates. He's due for a second look and my guess is that he'll get one.

John Kasich is a scold. Scolds aren't elected president.

No one else in the race matters. Where do you see it?

Republican stock report

Only saw about 45 minutes of last night's debate -- was at a much more interesting event earlier in the evening, which I'll get to later, perhaps tomorrow. Status:

• Donald Trump is settling in. You either agree with him or you don't; generally, I don't. Will the voters actually go for him? We're going to find out.
• Ben Carson has taken a lot of shots from the media in the last week, but he's still standing. I remain unconvinced he has any reason to be president.
• Ted Cruz is a brilliant debater. He has a great mind. Not sure his persona will wear well with the public. Still would like him on the Supreme Court.
• I wish I liked Marco Rubio more than I do. He's a talented politician and a very good orator. He still seems, I dunno, callow. If Trump fades, I would bet he's the nominee, though.
• I agree with Rand Paul on many, many things. He's never going to be president, though, and he really ought to go back to Kentucky now.
• Carly Fiorina intrigues me. She might be the best pure communicator of the bunch and has a quick mind. A good skill set, but is the right one? Could see her being the VP, though. 
• How do I put this delicately? John Kasich is annoying. In some respects, he's playing the James Webb role on the Republican side. Or he's the Jon Huntsman of 2016. Either way, no chance.
• Jeb Bush, go home. It's over.

For other reviews -- here's Bud Norman. And John Hinderaker. And Paul Mirengoff. And the ever-popular "drunk blogging" of Stephen Green.

Debate Recap -- It's Raining Mensheviks!

I didn't see all of yesterday's debate, but I caught enough of it to get a flavor. Observations:

• More than a few of these people need to go home now. The entire undercard would be a good place to start; the only candidate of that group that I'd want to hear is Bobby Jindal, but it's just not happening for him in this cycle.
• Mike Huckabee needs to go home. He's very good in this format, but he's never going to be president and it's time he makes his peace with that. As he kept talking about eradicating diseases, I was half expecting him to start doing one of his infomercials.
• John Kasich should go home as well. He's not going to be president and when, you watch his body language and demeanor, he knows it.
• Rand Paul was there, apparently. Not so much that you'd notice, though. I think Ted Cruz has essentially eaten his lunch. I wish Rand well in his promised filibuster today -- a return to the Senate is very much in order.
• Chris Christie had a good night, but I doubt he did enough to move the needle. I appreciated his comment about fantasy football, as it underscores the behavior of our government and the functionaries and grandees who are in its employ -- they are less interested in solving existing problems than in finding new opportunities to regulate and control the behavior of others. H. L. Mencken made the same point many years ago.
• Jeb Bush had a disastrous night. He tried, pretty much at the outset, to take out Marco Rubio, but his attack went nowhere, because Rubio was ready for it. It's difficult to see any rationale for Bush's campaign, other than it's his turn. Bush has a lot of money and a big ol' Super PAC, but I don't see a way forward.
• Carly Fiorina didn't make much progress. According to NPR's clock, she got the most time to speak, but in the exchanges I saw she wasn't particularly effective. I suspect she sticks around for a while, but the window appears to be closing on her campaign.
• Ted Cruz intrigues me, but I wonder if he'll be able to translate his intellect into a winning campaign formula for the general election. He was quite effective in excoriating the CNBC moderators for their bias and rudeness, but I wonder if references to the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks work in the larger context. He's the smartest man in the room, but I sense he's still too much of the college debate champion and suspect he'll be a tough sell to the audience he needs to win. He scares the hell of the Left, though, and that's something..
• Ben Carson is leading in some national polling and while I don't see the reason for it, I suspect his calm demeanor is crucial. He's a doctor with an outstanding bedside manner. Does that make him a plausible president? I'm still skeptical.
• Marco Rubio is a contender. He had an excellent debate last night and he's left Jeb Bush in his wake. He was ready for the attack on his Senate attendance record and he seemed to gain the sympathy of the audience when the moderators started in on his personal finances. He may not win, but he's going to be there at the end.
• Donald Trump is an acquired taste and I'm not likely to acquire it. Having said that, he's a compelling figure and his supporters don't care much about the many cavils others might offer. While I think Cruz has more native intelligence, Trump has done a great job of reading the mood of the electorate he is currently courting. He might get bored with the campaign, but I wouldn't bet on that happening. He's going to be around to the end.

With the requisite subtlety

Argument by assertion:

"Jeb [Bush] said 'We were safe with my brother. We were safe.' Well, the World Trade Center just went down. Now, am I trying to blame him? I'm not blaming anybody, but the World Trade Center came down, so when he said we were safe, we were not safe. We lost 3,000 people. It was one of the greatest — probably the greatest catastrophe ever in this country," the Republican presidential hopeful said.

If he were president, Trump said, it would have been different.

"I am extremely, extremely tough on people coming into this country," Trump said. And if he were president then, he said, he doubted "those people would've been in the country. … There's a good chance that those people would not have been in the country."

Extremely, extremely tough. Just ask him!

It's a stupid argument, really. You can blame George W. Bush for many things, but you can't make a bureaucracy turn on a dime. "There's a good chance" it would have been different, Trump says. How? What specific measures would he have taken to ensure a different result? Trump doesn't really have answers to these questions.

Scott Walker is gone

Too bad. He had potential and Walker made mistakes, but I think Trump killed his campaign, especially by loudly retailing the, and I'm going to use a clinical term here, bullshit claims of a previous Walker opponent, Mary Burke. Trump did the same thing in the last debate, and Walker objected to it, but after that moment CNN assured that Walker was barely on the screen any more. And that was the end. Trump is pretty much dead to me anyway, but his performance in re Walker was particularly egregious. You can highlight policy differences, but to outright lie is beyond the pale. And that's what Trump did in this matter. Go ahead and support Trump if you like his attitude and his swagger, but understand what you're getting is a man without any fixed principles other than his own self-regard. Trump will be a conservative champion until he gets bored with it. When that's over, he'll wipe his butt with all of his acolytes and not think twice about it. Again, if that's your thing, feel free to get on his bandwagon.

I don't have a favorite candidate at this point. If I had to pick today, I'd rank them as follows:

Rubio -- a compromise, but at least plausible
Fiorina -- not sure she's really the right person, but worth a listen
Cruz -- like him, but I don't think he's electable
Carson -- a very nice man and brilliant at what he does, but he'll not last
Trump -- look in my eyes, what do you see? Cult of personality
Bush -- go home, "Jeb!" Seriously, go home

I don't think anyone else has a chance. Do you see any sign of, say,  Bobby Jindal fever? I sure don't.

The second debate

Saw it -- didn't write about it yesterday because I was indisposed -- more on that in another post, probably tomorrow. Impressions:

• The format was terrible. It was all about goading the candidates to trash talk one another. And we might have finally found the way to silence Hugh Hewitt, who might as well have been on a milk carton.
• The Donald had a rough evening, but it may not matter, since many of his supporters aren't looking for wonkery. At some point Trump is going to need to offer specifics. I'm not sure his specifics will comport to the base as well as his attitude does.
• Carly Fiorina was impressive. Not surprising, because you don't get to the C-Suite in Corporate America unless you have presence and polish. She gets dinged for losing to Barbara Boxer, but I would suggest the California electorate is hardly representative of the rest of the country. I'm not sure how her skill set translates to political leadership, but she's going to rise in the polls for sure.
• I'm pretty sure Scott Walker was at the debate, but he was on camera about as much as Hugh Hewitt. I'm afraid Walker isn't going to make it, which is unfortunate because I think he has demonstrated the proper skill set in Wisconsin.
• There's a lot to like about Ben Carson, but he's not going to be president. It's evident that he thinks before he speaks and while we could use a thoughtful individual in the White House, that's not the prototype.
• John Kasich is running for president. Not sure why, though.
• Jeb Bush is going to stick around because he has a lot of money and even more institutional support from the old guard, but I'm pretty sure his moment has passed.
• I'm starting to think Marco Rubio is the guy to watch. He's made enemies with his unfortunate and unsuccessful alliance with Chuck Schumer, but I doubt that allegiance will be fatal.
• Mike Huckabee can go home now.
• Chris Christie was forceful, but he's not going to make it, either. We haven't elected a fat guy to be president since William Howard Taft.
• I like Ted Cruz, but there's something about his manner that's always seemed a little off. He almost comes off as Robert Mitchum in "Night of the Hunter." If he has "LOVE" and "HATE" tattooed on his fingers, we'll have confirmation.
• I also like Rand Paul, but he's got no chance.

Lemme know your thoughts in the comments.

Poor Ron

It's not easy being Ron Fournier these days, having to break it to us gently:

 For once, Hillary Rodham Clinton seemed to be a decent candidate. Taking aim at weak spots in the GOP lines, she attacked Jeb Bush on women's health, Marco Rubio on abortion, Scott Walker on college costs, and Donald Trump on sexism.

Then the stone wall crumbled around the Queen of Paradox: Hillary Clinton, both a political colossus and a catastrophe. 

He's just broken up about it all:

If the deleted emails can't be recovered, Clinton will never be able to clear her name. Only the most blindly loyal and partisan voters will accept her word and ignore the serial deception. Even people like me who have known and respected Clinton for years will walk into the voting booth asking ourselves, "What is she hiding?"

We all know what she's hiding, actually -- everything. The homebrew server, her feckless conduct as a diplomat, her eternal grifting. It's all coming down on her now.

Many people are speculating that the Obama Justice Department is going to stall out the investigation long enough for Hillary to win. Why would Obama want to do that? He couldn't count on Hillary to protect him. He'd rather have a loyalist like Joe Biden succeed him, or if a Republican has to win, someone who understands the code, like Jeb. The endgame is coming soon.

The first debate

Saw a good chunk of it, but not all. First thing to note -- how much time did each candidate get to speak?

Classy and huge

I saw this and found it interesting on two levels -- first, it goes to show why you need to double-check your impressions. As I was watching, it seemed to me that Ben Carson and Ted Cruz got less airtime than some of the other candidates, but that was actually not true. Second, I do suspect Rand Paul's lack of airtime is both purposeful and problematic. He is the contrarian of the bunch and we needed to hear more of his political philosophy. I know the reason because I've studied libertarian thinkers and thinking, but I would imagine much of the audience doesn't. As for Scott Walker's lack of airtime, I think that's more a function of his style than anything else. He makes his point and moves on. He could have easily had an extra minute of time if he'd chosen to take it, but he didn't.

General impressions, in the order of airtime:

• Trump is Trump, a force of nature. He talks in generalities and it's clear that he's only renting conservative principles, but his acolytes love him for the same reason why the dudes in the mullets came out for Jesse Ventura in 1998: people perceive him as speaking truth to power. He'll be in this for a while.
• I'm not convinced that Jeb Bush really wants to be president, but it's his time now, or so he's been told. He actually has a pretty good record in Florida, but he's made a habit of sticking his finger in the eye of the base. I don't see him making it.
• John Kasich had a home field advantage, since the debate took place in Cleveland, and he used it -- it was clear that the hall had a lot of Kasich acolytes in attendance. Kasich might have the best record of any candidate, but he seems, I don't know, cranky. He spits out his talking points in good fashion but he doesn't seem particularly compelling.
• Marco Rubio is a talented dude. He also seems callow to me. I really would like him to run for governor of Florida and come back in eight years.
• Ben Carson is interesting to watch. It takes him a while to rev up, but once he gets going he's pretty good. He's done some remarkable things in his life that are completely unrelated to the job he is seeking. In the end, that disconnect will doom his candidacy. Still, I would like to hear more.
• Ted Cruz is brilliant, the smartest guy in just about any room. He knows it, too. I think he really belongs on the Supreme Court. 
• I have never liked Mike Huckabee, because I think he's a charlatan. He's very good behind a podium, though. His "trust but vilify" line concerning the Leader of the Free World was a good one. I still don't trust him.
• Chris Christie is fun to watch -- his dustup with Rand Paul was the most interesting exchange of the night. He would never admit it publicly, but I think he will regret his embrace of Barack Obama for the rest of his days. He'll never have the trust of the Republican base.
• As I said, Scott Walker hit his marks and moved on. The interesting comparison for him is Kasich, who is also a Midwestern governor but a generation older and with extensive Washington experience. I suspect Kasich is going to start taking shots at Walker and it will be interesting to see how Walker responds.
• I like Rand Paul for many reasons. He's the only libertarian in the race and I personally think he got the better of his exchange with Christie. He doesn't come across as forceful on the television screen, however. His voice is adenoidal, which really hurts him.
• I didn't see any of the matinee event, but the consensus is that Carly Fiorina won going away. I would very much like to see more of her; she's tough-minded and she stays on message better than any of the candidates I've seen. I suspect she'll be in the next debate.

Finally, a word on the Fox News panel asking the questions. From what I can tell, the conservative blogosphere was mightily displeased with the questions and tone of the panel, with particular scorn for Chris Wallace. I didn't mind the tough questions -- when the general election debates take place next year, those are the sorts of questions that will be asked, so it's better that the candidates get used to it.

Shifts and shiftlessness

A caveat at the outset -- I do not want Jeb Bush to be president. In fact, the entire Bush family really ought to go away from national politics and stay away. Okay, we've cleared that up. Now, let's get to the mendacity built into the reaction he's getting for something he said earlier this week:

During an interview that was live-streamed on the app Periscope, Bush made the comments to New Hampshire’s The Union Leader answering a question about his plans for tax reform.

“My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours” and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in.”

The reaction I've seen to this statement is ridiculous. A sample, from my social media feed:

The obscenely wealthy have a robust history of believing that everybody who isn’t obscenely wealthy is not so simply by virtue of being shiftless. If they weren’t already dead inside, I guess that would make it easier for them to sleep at night and look themselves in the mirror.

What makes someone "obscenely wealthy" is a discussion for another day. So, did you sense that ol' Jeb is saying people are shiftless? I didn't. Bush is talking about the workforce participation rate, which is at a lower point than it has been in generations. A lot of people aren't working full time hours at present. For some, it's a conscious decision. For some others, it's because full time work isn't readily available. For some people, the job search has been so fruitless that they've given up.

In my job, I manage 7 people. Five of the seven are full time employees; the other two are contractors. One of the two contractors works 3 days a week; the other works the full week. I have enough work to hire these people and probably one more, but the cost of adding a new employee is so high that it's simply easier to have them work as contractors. We pay our contractors very well, but we don't have to take on any of the other associated costs of employing someone, especially benefits.

I'm not particularly crazy about the arrangement, but we make it work. Employers everywhere do similar things. Would my 3 day-a week contractor have a better life if she worked all five days? Maybe, but not necessarily. Her current schedule allows her time for her family, which is important to her. Mrs. D works part-time as well; she could increase her hours by taking another job, but at this point in our lives it doesn't make sense for her to do so.

I do think a lot of people would like more hours. I know a lot of full time workers would like to work less hours than they currently do. Getting there is difficult and will require a lot of people to change how they operate. Making it easier for people who are unemployed, or underemployed, to find full time work is the challenge. How do you do it? The election hinges on how we answer that question.