Advisory Opinions - Laws of War

Episode Date: January 3, 2020

Sarah and David discuss the killing of Iranian general Qassim Suleimani, ask WWJBD? (What would Jed Bartlett do?), and handicap the Democratic primary campaign. Sarah answers the burning question of the age -- is it better or worse to raise money in a wine cave? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

UV rays don't skip a day. Neither should your SPF. Introducing Daily UV Moisturizer from Umbrelle. Broad-spectrum protection and all-day hydration in one lightweight formula. From the number one recommended brand by pharmacists and physicians. It's the unskippable SPF for your unstoppable day. New Umbrelle Daily UV Moisturizer. Now available online or at your local retailer. That's the sound of unaged whiskey transforming into Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey

in Lynchburg, Tennessee. Around 1860, Nearest Green taught Jack Daniel how to filter whiskey through charcoal for a smoother taste, one drop at a time. This is one of many sounds in Tennessee with a story to tell. To hear them in person, plan your trip at tnvacation.com. Tennessee sounds perfect. Welcome to the Advisory Opinions Podcast. This is The Dispatch's David French with The Dispatch's Sarah Isger, and we're coming to you on a very slow news day.

Very slow start to the new year. Of course, that's not possible. Last night, we had the really stunning news of the targeted strike. I'm not going to call it an assassination for reasons that we'll talk about. The targeted strike of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' leader, that's al-Quds Force, and his name is Soleimani, Soleimani, Soleimani. You'll see it pronounced and spelled multiple different ways. But one thing you need to know about him is he was one of the world's most feared terrorist leaders, if not the world's most feared terrorist leader. He was perhaps the most powerful terrorist leader in the world, far more powerful than Osama bin Laden. I would say rivaled only by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the ISIS leader at his height. He directed Iranian military operations and terrorist operations across the Middle East, has been an opponent of the United States for years.

at being responsible for the deaths of more than 600 Americans, including one man that I knew in Iraq, that I served with in Iraq, when his Iranian-backed Shia militias rose up against us in the late spring of 2008 during my deployment. We mainly fought al-Qaeda in Iraq, but for about five harrowing weeks, we were also fighting the Iranian-backed Shia militia. So this was— So I want to get your take. You touched on this briefly, but maybe I just want to emphasize it. There are those who were comparing this to killing Osama bin Laden. I take it that you do not even see this as a comparison.

Well, okay. I would say it's hard. There's a way in which it's apples and oranges. And it's, so it's hard to sort of gauge the relative significance. On the one hand, Osama bin Laden hit the United States harder than anybody ever has. On our soil. On our soil. I mean, thousands of Americans, almost 3,000 Americans were killed on 9-11. Thousands more have died in Afghanistan, fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. So I don't look at it as Osama bin Laden was less significant in killing Osama bin Laden was less significant. It was just very strategically different. And Soleimani is extremely significant in his own right. And I think one of the differences here

is Soleimani was the actual arm of a government of a sovereign nation that was engaged in not just operations against the U.S., but across the region. He has regional significance. But what might make this... I've also seen this compared then to, you know, killing a U.S. vice president. I would say a U.S. secretary of defense, maybe, would be more apt. This is not somebody, I mean, Iran, as long as it's an Islamic republic, is going to be led by clerics. So, you know, it's not like this was a guy who was in the line of succession in Iran. But, you know, killing a secretary of defense, killing, you know, somebody like a General Petraeus at the height of his powers. I mean, very, very, very, very significant. And a person of unique diabolical talents. I mean, this is somebody who is not necessarily easily replaceable, although the Iranians will slot in someone to replace him, of course, just like we would. They already did.

Right, right. And so as far as his diabolical talents, he may not be easily replaceable. But it's not like Iran's strategy in the Middle East. At least we don't think it's going to radically change. I don't think their course of action will radically change. There's a lot of questions about retaliation. You might cast exactly this person. You looked the part. Yeah. At least in pictures, you know, in some of the photos where he looks particularly menacing. I want to get to what I think is the heart of the question today, which is you started out by saying you weren't ready to call this, weren't willing to call this an assassination.

willing to call this an assassination i want you to talk about some of the legal underpinnings of killing a an arm as you said of a foreign government this was not a non-governmental terrorist entity as osama bin laden was this was a member of the government and um you know right before we started we were talking a little bit about the West Wing. I was, at least. You, not so much. I, however, compare everything to the West Wing. So, season three of the West Wing, President Bartlett kills Sharif, and they talk about Reagan's executive order not to commit assassinations of government figures and why that's different. So, if you could walk me through season three of the West Wing.

Now, why do you not walk us through some of the legal side of this? And if you want to touch upon this now, or we can do this later, the significance of it being a drone attack? Well, okay. So first regarding the West Wing, I have never seen more than one full episode of the West Wing. And we're coming from very different places in our lives. episode of the West Wing. And we're coming from very different places in our lives. I'm so sorry. I have had multiple people tell me I need to rectify that situation, but I think I've seen one. So I've seen each episode more than you've seen any episode. Wow. Wow. Okay. So I can't, I can't speak to Jed Bartlett. Is it, was it Jed Bartlett? Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. That's the name of the most famous fictional president ever. Yep. Go ahead. Okay. But I can speak to this situation. So here's the basic outline of it. You saw a lot of talk about the executive order, 1-2-3-3-3, prohibiting targeted assassinations. You saw online, you saw a lot of talk about that this was an act of war against Iran that should require congressional authorization because it was attacking, as we said earlier, a leader, a military leader of a sovereign nation. That's all. I know that that's what Congress often says after the fact, though rarely do they want to take hard votes before the fact. But please continue. Yeah, we could talk about that a long time. The weakening of Article 1, a story of the last 80 years.

And we could do a 15 podcast series, The Weakening of Article 1 and Advisory Opinions Lament. It's so true. Root of a lot of problems, maybe the 17th amendment. I can do a whole like, you know, rant on the 17th amendment really being the worst amendment of the amendments for exactly this reason. But basically you have this massive increase in executive power since steel seizure, the sort of balance that Jackson was discussing has all been blown out of the water because the president is always at the zenith of his power now because everything involves. Yeah. So, so there we are. So there's no AUMF here. There's no authorization.

That's what's different about this. David's making a face at me. Okay. Go. Go. So here we go. Let's back up a little bit. It is very important that this strike happened in Iraq. This was not a strike of the, this was not the United States reaching into Iran, the territory of Iran and striking Iran. This was not striking even in Syria. It's very important this happened in Iraq. Why is that? Because we are lawfully in Iraq conducting a congressionally authorized mission according to valid legal authorities. Okay. So there's an AUM. Yes, although that mission has parameters.

Right, right. So we're essentially, to make a long story short, there's two authorizations of military force here that come into play. One is the post-911 authorization, which allows us to track down sort of al-Qaeda and its progeny. And this is the authorization that's most applicable to the ISIS mission, for example. We'll call this the OGAUMF. Authorized Use of Military Force, by the way, but OGAUMF. Yes, yes. And for readers or listeners who are not familiar with the phrase OG, that's original gangsta, correct? You like how I thought some of our listeners might not be familiar with AUMF, but I just assumed, obviously, they'd know OG. Okay. Whoops.

I'm assuming they're a particular kind of nerd. Not West Coast rap nerd. Got it. Right, right. Exactly. Exactly. So there's an AUMF that authorizes anti-terror operations, and there's an AUMF that has long authorized operations in Iraq. Now, there's some questions about does this still pertain post-2011 withdrawal? But there's been no congressional sort of objection to that notion. Obama put our troops back in in 2014 as part of an anti-ISIS mission. And the anti-ISIS mission is lawfully authorized. American troops that are conducting counterterror missions are lawfully authorized. They are there with the

permission of the Iraqi government. So they are engaged in combat according to a congressionally authorized mission in Iraq. I will grade you everything you said, except you sort of imply that there's this concept where a congressionally authorized use of military force is always indefinite unless Congress says otherwise, which I think is a big assumption. Right. It is a big assumption, although the post 9-11 AUMF, which I think needs to be updated. I think the post-9-11 AUMF needs to be—Congress needs to step in and do its job. But part of the design—and, you know, if you remember back post-9-11, there was a thought that this was going to be a long war. This was going to be a war sort of, you know, fought not in the way that we fought World War II, not in the way we fought Korea or even Vietnam. This was going to be a long sort of shadowy twilight struggle. On the Afghanistan side, not the Iraq side. We were told that one was going to be over super fast. Yeah, that didn't go as intended. But I think the bottom line is, if you're going to say, where are American forces,

their presence, where is their presence at its apex of congressional authorization? It's in Afghanistan, and it's in Iraq, and it's engaged in explicit counterterror missions. Okay, so the U.S. counterterror mission in Iraq, I believe, is congressionally authorized. And when you're engaged in combat operations in a congressionally authorized sphere of operations, not only do you have a right to conduct those operations according to the congressional mandate, you also have an absolute right of self-defense. I mean, American forces have a right of self-defense everywhere, but we're talking about engaged in combat operations. They have a right of self-defense and they have come under fire and they've come under fire from these Iranian backed militias. And when you come under fire under the law of war, your ability to respond to that is not just, I fire back in the moment. It is, I can also conduct operations designed to prevent future attacks. And a classic of the genre would be taking out command and control facilities of

your opponent. That's a classic of the genre. I mean, this is, that's how militaries conduct operations. This is an attack on military command and control is not in combat operations called an assassination. An assassination. Okay, but I want to provide you a hypothetical that is not realistic, but nevertheless, mine. Okay. Nevertheless, mine. Okay. In the future, the Chinese government has rejected our trade deal, and they are refusing to sell us widgets that we really like and need,

that we've, you know, iPhones. All of a sudden, we have no more iPhones coming in. We're very upset about this. Whatever. Yeah, war is imminent. War is imminent. And Xi Jinping lands at the

Baghdad airport and we are in an economic trade war with them. I understand it's not a hot war, but because he's in Iraq, what do you think the terms of engagement are against a Chinese government minister? There's no terms of engagement. The difference with, say, a Chinese leader or Maduro from Venezuela,

or if Putin comes for a state visit, it's not that Iraq is a free fire zone for anyone. If you land anyone we don't like in the U.S., we just coax them to Iraq. No, it's that Soleimani was actually engaged in combat operations against U.S. forces in Iraq. And he was in Iraq in a capacity as a combatant commander against U.S. forces. Now, there is actually some interesting past precedent for taking out military officials of foreign powers who we're not engaged in active hostilities with in a war zone. And that is during the... You mean aside from West Wing Season 3? Aside, and I don't know the facts of West Wing Season 3. season three. And I don't know the facts of West Wing season three. Poor David, I'm going to keep bringing this reference up that he has no clue about until he's just like, please stop. Or you're

going to go watch it. I will. Just give me an episode number. I'll see it. 20. 20. It's called, yeah, the episode name is We Killed Yamamoto, which I, yeah, see, see a little historical reference. I'm pulling you in. Yeah. Oh, I'm sold. So during the Cold War, for example, during the Korean War, there were times when Soviets would send their pilots to the war zone to engage in combat operations against U.S. forces, to train them, to give them combat experience. And even though we were not at war with the Soviet Union, nobody wanted war with the Soviet Union. War with the Soviet Union could have destroyed human civilization. There was absolutely no question that we had the right to shoot down a Soviet-piloted MiG-15

when it rose to challenge our F-86s in the Korean conflict. Soviet pilots were even involved in flying aircraft against Israelis, for example, during the War of Attrition. That to me is more a comparison to the guys literally shooting at our guys. You're talking about a guy back at headquarters who's at best, you know, sitting on the radio saying, yeah, yeah, move forward. You know, in the old school, he would be on his horse in the back of the line on the top of the hill, sort of overlooking the battle at most. And we didn't used to target those guys, at least in, and I'm, you know, the Patriot.

I'm thinking of other movies. You know, we stole that guy's dogs in the Patriot, not stole. They came willingly because they wanted the freedom of America, those great Danes. But you take my point. Yeah, yeah. But there's no, under the law of armed conflict, there's no distinction between the guy in the cockpit and the commander in the headquarters. Zero distinction. And in fact, the commander in the headquarters is probably a more valuable target than the guy in the cockpit. Well, generally speaking, if you show a young person, older child, any war movie where we don't take out the general who's in the back on the top of the hill, every kid I've ever watched a movie with is like, why aren't we just killing that guy? Isn't he the one in charge? Oh, yeah.

There's like something very instinctive about like, why are we killing all these guys in front who are just following orders? Kill the guy giving the orders. Oh, yeah, absolutely. I mean, this is sort of like, you know, strategy 101, you know, cut off the head of the snake. But so in other words, that's a really long West Wing inflected, or should I say West Wing infected way of saying that this was a military commander operating against U.S. forces in a war zone where we are congressionally authorized to be, i.e., no assassination, i.e., no congressional authorization required. How would you define assassination then? Give me an example. In this context, who would we need to kill for that to be an assassination? So typically an assassination, and a lot of the genesis of these executive orders was based on

reigning in U.S. intelligence services who had been engaged in clandestine operations overseas designed to try to kill leaders hostile to the U.S. in their own countries or officials hostile to the U.S. often in their own countries who are not at a state of war with us. So, for example- Welcome to South America in the 1970s. Yeah, the multiple attempts to try to get rid of Castro is an example. So, this was prohibiting U.S. intelligence agencies from engaging in hostile, targeted assassination activities against foreign leaders of countries with which we are not at war. It's an apples and oranges situation versus attacking a military commander in a zone of

armed conflict where American troops are operating pursuant to valid congressional authorities. Very different. Very different. So now that's all, the lawful authorization of it is a whole separate question from whether it was wise or prudent. Yes. And we won't, I mean, my honest assessment of that is it was justifiable. It was a bold gamble. It was lawful. And whether it's wise or not will be proven out by events and both the Iranian and American

response to events as this unfolds. We won't know for weeks or months whether this was a wise gamble, but it was absolutely legal and justifiable. If we were all playing by the same laws of war, if the Secretary of Defense visited Iraq right now, he's fair game? Yeah. Yeah, he is. The vice president's fair game? Well, now, so let me back up a bit. If you're talking about an armed conflict, according to engaged with two combatants locked in a mortal struggle operating according to the laws of

armed conflict yeah absolutely i'm i'm well okay but i'm talking about no like tomorrow they land in iraq and iran takes out you know kills our secretary of defense you will come back on this podcast and say while i don't think it was prudent, it was legal. Yeah, strikes against command authority officials in an armed conflict, even if the command authority is technically a civilian. So the U.S. chain of command ends in civilians. Strikes against command authorities in an armed conflict are appropriate under the laws of war. Now, there's different ways in which it can be done. So, for example, if you have a person engaged who—if you have a suicide bombing, a person who is dressed as a civilian, for example, trying to disguise himself as a civilian who executes a suicide bombing, that violates the law of armed conflict for lots of complicated reasons. But the most

principal one being there's a principle of what's called distinction, that combatants are supposed to fight each other in uniform so that you can distinguish between friend and foe and minimize civilian casualties. Our opponents have observed that requirement mainly in the breach over the past 20 years or so. But the short answer is, if you're talking about an armed conflict, the chain of command is a lawful target, period. So, enough on Soleimani, you think? You tell me. I don't know. Like, I'm in. You talked about the prudence. Do you want to? No one knows what will happen exactly next, but there's some more likely options than others. Yeah. So I put out a tweet thread late last night. I was up way too late

tweeting about this. So one of the threads was about the sentence, how very 2020. So one of the threads was about the legality. Another thread was about the consequences and about the prudence. And, and I, a lot of people were, you know, hours after the, after the strike or declaring it foolish or wise, when there's a branching tree of possibilities here that could be greatly beneficial or catastrophic for us, depending not just on what Iran does, but also how we respond to what Iran does. So here are a few of those possibilities. One was sent to me by a friend of mine who's a former intel official, did a lot of work in the Middle East, and he called this the brushback pitch option.

And that is, in essence, that the United States warned Iran and demonstrated to Iran that its U.S. And this will be a serious enough blow that it acts as a brushback. It's not going to end the conflict between the U.S. and Iran, but it causes a de-escalation as they don't want to poke the bear, or I guess the better term would be poke the eagle again. So that's one. Eagles don't like to be poked. That is absolutely. I'm not an eagle expert, but I feel safe in asserting that. You know, I actually am pretty close to being a bird of prey expert on this podcast. Little known fact.

Really? My mother was a licensed wildlife rehabber who specialized in raptors. So I grew up raising hawks and owls. We had frozen rats in my freezer through my whole childhood. We called them ratsicles to make it a little more kid friendly. And we would thaw them in the microwave and then cut them up. So I was very good at anatomy from a young age and feeding raptors. So, so yeah. So eagles don't like to be poked. I feel like I can say that as a factual matter. They do like little scratches though

around where their ears are. Oh, interesting. Okay. Yeah. Well, I'm just like all animals. I'm glad that's an unheralded expertise. You should broadcast that more first. Okay, we'll do more on that.

And I'm second. I'm glad my instinctual response that an eagle doesn't like to be poked was correct. It was, yeah. I think you're good there. Good. So that's one. And that's the kind of a reasonable good case scenario. A case that is, I think, quite possible is what you would call sort of the revenge is best served cold scenario. And that is, rather than court continued escalation that could go very badly for Iran, Iran waits, like Libya did after the 1986 bombing that Reagan executed against Libyan forces.

And a year later, two years later, attempts a massive or significant terror attack through proxies for plausible deniability. So remember Libya in 1986, the U.S. bombed it in 1988. It got revenge when it blew up Pan Am Flight 103. So that's a possibility. I would put that as among the more likely possibilities. is among the more likely possibilities. Then there is the possibility of Iran lashes out, but not at us, but at allies, perhaps Saudi Arabia, knowing that the U.S. public is less willing to engage in combat operations on behalf of the Saudis, but also knowing that they can do a lot of chaos and do a lot of damage to the world economy if they hit the Saudis.

And then the other one is sort of the nightmare scenario of direct confrontation with the U.S. In other words, that they try to take direct, immediate or short term revenge against U.S. forces by trying to engage in some sort of large scale attack. Some sort of large scale attack. And that's the thing that could trigger a real shooting war, which would be extremely bloody, not like anything that we have seen since 9-11. Very dangerous. And then the last one that I laid out is sort of a chaos option. And that is that the Shia militia that are in Iraq lash out at the U.S. on their own authority rather than waiting for Iranian guidance. And that sort of takes us into territory where we don't really know the next steps. So that's kind of the branching tree. And I will, with, again, my expertise, weigh in, and I don't want to spoil anything, but it doesn't turn out well for the Bartletts.

Oh, it doesn't? No, killing Sharif turns out to be a bad move in the Bartlett's. Oh, it doesn't. No, killing Sharif turns out to be a bad move in the Bartlett presidency. So I'll leave you with that as, you know, another possibility. I am so sorry, listeners, that my expertise in this is the West Wing and birds. Well, you are inducing me to watch it after I finished The Witcher on Netflix. So I'm through The Expanse season four, which is awesome. And I'm starting The Witcher, which is pretty wildly over the top.

And so I might be ready for a little sedate Aaron Sorkin after that. It's much more sedate. Yeah. This is highbrow, fast talkingtalking, hallway-moving conversation. Yes, yes. I've seen, you know, I saw, was it Sports Night, his first? Yeah, that's his first one.

Yeah. Then the American President, which leads you right into the West Wing, of course. Yes. But, I mean, the West Wing gives you such great things as posse comitatus. You know, we kill Yamamoto. Yeah. Don't know that know that like don't worry there'll be 10 seconds said really quickly to explain how we killed yamamoto oh i'm i'm familiar with that operation in world war ii that yeah that's that's now you're you're selling me i'm gonna watch it episode season 3 episode 20 i'm i there. I'm there. Okay.

Well, I want to move on to domestic. Yeah, let's move on to the, so for those folks who are new to The Dispatch, and you should subscribe at thedispatch.com, it's still free for now. And new to our podcast and new to our backgrounds, Sarah, you are a veteran of presidential politics. And I thought, especially before we start rolling out our other Dispatch podcast offerings, that it would be as we are now at what, one month from the Iowa caucus? Just over. Yes. It'll be February 3rd. Yes. So we're exactly one month from the Iowa caucus. I would love to hear you bring your presidential campaign expertise into play in this democratic field. And I want to know where you think things stand. And then we'll end with a discussion of the wine cave and a little bit

of campaign finance so what you want to end with campaign finance i don't know i think we might have to start with campaign finance you think start with it i think because it's so exciting because it's relevant today because that uh you look at horse race numbers uh and we don't have polling since before the debate at this point which is sort of incredible but this happens uh regularly in august of 2015 we went through a polling slump where we didn't really know anything and so that's where we are right now we don't have polling since before the debate. So when, for instance, if you think Amy Klobuchar really won that debate, the only thing we have to look at are her fundraising numbers post-debate and what bumps she got. So that is sort of a, I don't know, a polling-esque calculation.

It's like a leading edge indicator of momentum, perhaps. Yeah. So, and the numbers are, we've got've got i think everyone's as of today uh except booker okay we do not have booker's numbers as of yet but uh donald trump 46 million up from last quarter sanders 34.5 up from last quarter budaj 24.7 up from last quarter biden 22.7 up from last quarter. Buttigieg, 24.7 up from last quarter. Biden, 22.7 up from last quarter. Elizabeth Warren, 21.2 down from last quarter, which is not insignificant.

She's the only one who went down from last quarter, which again, we talk about this being a leading edge of poll numbers, reflects also a polling slump. Andrew Yang, 16.5. Yes. Don't really know where that's all coming from, but well done, Yang Gang, beating out a sitting U.S. Senator, Amy Klobuchar, with 11.4, though by far her highest that we've seen in a quarter. She probably has the biggest jump percentage-wise. And then Tulsi Gabbard, 3.4 million, also up from last quarter, although at some point you're below an amount that can sustain a national campaign.

And I'd say that that's about that number. Gotcha. Okay. So, okay, everyone's up except Warren. And everyone is, give or take, where their polling numbers are. You know, except Biden nationally. But you want to look at those early states. They're not, the distance isn't correct for their polling numbers. But, you know, Sanders, Buttigieg, Biden, and Warren all kind of clumped together in that top tier of money raisers is about where those early state polls are.

So what does this all mean heading into Iowa? So the Iowa caucuses are such a unique little beast. When I started in this, again, with only the knowledge provided to me by the West Wing, I was kind of in favor of a national primary. And after spending real time, lots of time, on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire, you do sort of, you see why this system, though not perfect, is delightful in its own way. Right. Because the people in Iowa and New Hampshire, but let's focus on Iowa, they take this responsibility really seriously.

This is a real part of their lives every four years to feel like it's their job to vet for the other 350 million Americans. All of these candidates up close kick the tires, so to speak. million Americans. All of these candidates up close kick the tires, so to speak. And then when it comes to voting, if you are not familiar with caucus voting, it's full tackle. You have to go in person and stand in corners. And if someone doesn't reach the threshold, you have to move corners to somewhere else. And so you really have to show up in your community and be seen and have these discussions. And it's sort of this beautiful little bit of democracy that I felt so privileged is an overused word. But like I did, I felt really privileged to get to see that in action.

And and for everyone who sort of cast aspersions very easily at, you know, this is stupid. Why is Iowa first? I hear you. I am sympathetic to that. And yet, I don't know, if you're there in person, you're kind of rooting for them. So I have a theory on this, and you can tell me if it's total garbage. I also think there's a humbling aspect for the candidates in a way. Like you hear you have some, these like titans of industry, billionaires sometimes, accomplished CEOs, senators. And then next thing you know, they, who want to run for the highest office land. And for some of them, one of the first things they do is they talk to 24 people, you know, at a set of folding chairs. That is the main event. Yeah. It's house parties.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, mean, and they'll have like a school teacher from Des Moines and a welder and they'll grill them. I mean, they will absolutely grill them. And there's something about that, that, you know, we have an imperial presidency, we have the rise of sort of like the parliament of pundits that Jonah talks about with our Congress and the sort of celebrity politician. You know, we have a few sort of celebrity politicians out there. I just kind of like that these guys have to go talk to two dozen people in a church basement in a blizzard conditions. And you see, you saw some of that in 2016. As narratives form,

one of the more interesting ones in 2016 was the kickoff for Hillary Clinton's campaign when she wore her sunglasses into the Chipotle. By itself, by the way, this is a meaningless thing to do. I am very confident

I have worn sunglasses into Chipotle. My sunglasses are prescription. I can't confident I have worn sunglasses into Chipotle. My sunglasses are prescription. I can't see the menu. If it's sunny outside and then I walk in, it's like a whole reaching into my purse and like a bunch of stuff is in there, whatever. I've worn my sunglasses into restaurants all the time. I try when I check out at the register to pull them up so I don't look like I'm an asshole. But that's all to say for Hillary Clinton, that turned into this narrative that followed her for the rest of the time and very much into Iowa, that she was imperious and wanted to just sort of run a national campaign and didn't really want to sit into house parties. I'm not

saying that's accurate, but it's a damaging thing to have happen to you in Iowa and New Hampshire in these early states because they expect something very, very different of their presidential candidates. Well, do you remember Fred Thompson and the golf cart? That was always a quizzical campaign. Had friends who were on it. Sounded like fun. Sounded like those guys were having fun, but interesting choices made along the way. So the history of the Iowa caucuses,

for those who are just dying to know, it basically starts with a booked hotel that we've all experienced. You know, you think you're going to Des Moines and surely there are hotel rooms, but in 1972, there weren't. They were all booked. And so the Democratic Party moved up the caucus into January

so that there would be hotel rooms enough. Fascinating. And so that's how it starts. And then all of a sudden, so it's not intentional. It's not particularly Machiavellian. But then once it happens,

everyone is like, oh, wait a second. This was genius. So then in 76 the republicans follow suit shortly thereafter the legislature passes a law that iowa has to be first yeah um which annoys new hampshire though not as much as i think i mean i think i was very lucky that it wasn't texas so new hampshire have been going first since roughly the 1920s, but it didn't really matter until about 56. So they really became FITN, first in the nation, which is their hashtag on Twitter, for instance, in 56.

They had a law on the books, have, that says that they will be the first contest of its kind. Well, that was doing a lot of work. And so Iowa was like, ah, see, not of the same kind. We're a caucus and you're a primary. And New Hampshire was just kind of like, yeah, I guess you're right. I mean, Texas would have gone to war over that. Yeah, no question about that. Yeah. So since 76, Iowa has been first and New Hampshire has been second, twas ever thus. And the history of the Iowa caucus has really been one not of picking winners

but of picking losers for the most part. It knocks a lot of people out of the race. It rarely, if ever, anoints someone as the nominee from that point forward, give or take about half, less than half, of the eventual nominees have ever won Iowa. But we've never had a nominee come in fifth or lower. Right, right. So Bill Clinton came in fourth behind uncommitted.

Jimmy Carter came in second behind uncommitted. Jimmy Carter came in second behind uncommitted. But there's a saying, there's three tickets out of Iowa. Twice there have been a fourth ticket, but generally speaking, that is where Iowa sloughs off the rest of the field. This will be really interesting, I think, because of the Klobuchar factor. Yeah. So let me ask you about that. So we're one month out.

In my amateur assessment, that's enough room for somebody to have a moment before the February 3rd. Does she have a chance? Yeah, football-wise, I would compare this to the two-minute warning. Okay. You've got to make your move now. You don't actually have a lot of time. And if you have to punt the ball,

you're done. Yeah, right. You've got to get that first down. If Klobuchar comes in fifth, there is no fifth ticket out of Iowa. No question for her. If she comes in second or third, Then I really think, you know, and let's assume for a second that Biden comes in fifth. Oh boy, yeah. No question that all five of those

move forward without us really being able to write off any of them. The biggest problem for Klobuchar is that even if she performs well in Iowa, she has an all-in on Iowa strategy. Two things have never really worked well in presidential primary politics, the all-in in Iowa strategy and the skipping Iowa strategy.

Neither one has done well. So you look at her New Hampshire numbers, South Carolina, Nevada, Super Tuesday, California type numbers. She's not above 2% in any of those. So even if you come in second or third in Iowa, an incredible showing for someone who only raised $11 million, for instance, this quarter, I don't see how you can survive three 2%ers. So what she's counting on is that all of a sudden New Hampshire will be like, three two percenters. So what she's counting on is that all of a sudden New Hampshire will be like, oh, well, if Iowa liked her, we will. Except again, history shows that New Hampshire likes to do the opposite, which is, oh, Iowa liked them. Definitely not voting for that guy.

Right. Exactly. You know, Bill Clinton's 92 race, I think, is actually really instructive and probably what the Buttigieg campaign is really looking at for their format. Bill Clinton came in fourth, as I said. Tom Harkin got 76 percent because he was the senator from Iowa. So the Iowa caucus didn't matter that year. And so then when he went to New Hampshire, all of a sudden his numbers pick up a lot. Then South Carolina and then Michigan. He I think Michigan, right?

He wins Michigan. No, he wins. Georgia is his first one that he won. And then Super Tuesday, which was a traditionally southern swing. Of course, Bill Clinton did incredibly well. And so it was a primary schedule set up for a Bill Clinton candidate to come in. I think you could argue the same is true for Buttigieg this time around. His biggest problem right now is national name ID.

If he wins Iowa, which according to the polls, if it were held today, he really, really could. That would fix his biggest problem, which is name ID. And so then you have these other early states, which he's doing pretty well in, and then you head into, and I know that we've done this in past cycles, call it Super Duper Tuesday, but like really this time it's Super Duper Tuesday

because California's in it. We'll have 60% of the delegates allocated by mid-March. It's amazing. Amazing. Yeah. So that's all to say that type of schedule actually favors a high name ID candidate like Biden because you have to run so much so quickly and you don't get a lot of time for momentum. But boy, if there's anyone who's nipping at his heels right now,

unexpectedly, you have to look at Buttigieg. Now, our young staff here at the dispatch will argue with me about Sanders. I don't know if you want to dive into the Sanders conundrum, but, and my, I had friends stay with me for new years, my, my college girlfriends and their husbands and, and one of the husbands, Sanders person, my sister-in-law's boyfriend, Sanders person. They keep first father.

They really like to argue with me about how the Bernie bros thing was a Russian concocted narrative. And yet everyone who comes into my house and argues about Bernie Sanders with me has been a male in the exact demographic of the Bernie bro. Oh, it's a real thing. It's a real thing. But sure. I think there's a lot to look at

in the Sanders numbers that can look good, but a lot that can look pretty bad. So let's just take his fundraising number and I'll leave it at that unless you're interested in more, which is 34.5 million. OMG, that's a really high number. He's just blowing it out of the water on the money. Here's the problem. Low dollar fundraising, the kind you do online, costs an incredible amount of money. So just looking at his other three quarters, he's spending 55 cents for every dollar raised. That's a pretty high burn rate to get that money online.

And no Super PAC help, et cetera. So there's a reason he didn't release his cash on hand numbers. release his cash on hand numbers. Also, his people, you know, in 2016 do very well in caucus type systems because it rewards high enthusiasm and young people and things like this, younger people. The caucuses accounted for 16 percent of the delegates in 2016. They will account for 3 percent in 2020. So there's a lot of headwinds facing bernie sanders heading into this i think he has to win iowa right um i think buddha judge probably has to win or come in second in iowa i think biden actually can skate he has such high name id he's fine um warren would have to, much better. And Klobuchar has to come in second or third.

That all I mean, that all sounds right to me. And and I think that one of the things I I'm really glad you brought up because I was going to ask you specifically about these eye popping low dollar fundraising numbers, these low dollar donor fundraising numbers. And so I heard you saying loud and clear that all other things being equal, you would much rather raise your money in a wine cave than online. Isn't that amazing? You would. It's much, much cheaper because think about it. You have a minimum amount at those fundraisers. Because think about it.

You have a minimum amount at those fundraisers. Sometimes it's $100, but oftentimes it's a $500 to $2,800 fundraiser. And so you're getting everyone in there, and sure, you're feeding them. I remember back in 2000, actually, the Bush campaign made a pitch to donors that we're going to feed you hot dogs and hamburgers because we want to use your money not to feed you, but to winurgers because we want to use your money not to feed you, but to win this election. And it was very effective. The wine gave a little bit, maybe the opposite of that move. But, you know, your goal in raising any amount of money is to spend the least amount of money to raise it. So 20 cents on the dollar for a high dollar fundraiser would be pretty good, pretty normal. $0.55 on the dollar

for a low dollar digital advertising campaign would also be pretty normal. Now, the difference is you can raise a lot more money very quickly online at that $0.55 a dollar, but you've just got to bear in mind, you've got to raise a lot more because it's costing you so, so much more than the 20 cents on the dollar. Yeah. So, you know, one of the things I learned in 2016 was to pay attention to both data and anecdotes. Oh God, if this is going to be about yard signs, I can't. No, no, no, no, no, no. So, you know, there's this tendency when you sort of subjectively see intensity around you to well actually it and say, well, you know, I'm experiencing a lot of intensity around me. But, well, actually, I could refer you to this Vox.com chart laden article showing that all that is not real. And one thing that I noticed in 2016 was this unbelievable intensity on the part of both the Trump people and the Bernie people.

And I have this great little anecdote from 2016 that sort of was a sign of how it was not going to be as easy to take the whole Bernie crew and put them behind Hillary. I was on a flight from DCA back to Nashville, and I'm sitting next to a Bernie bro. And he was looking over my shoulder while I was typing out a column, and he asked what I did. And I told him. And he's, what do you think about Bernie and Medicare for All? So we had a little debate about Medicare for All. And I'm talking in my. By the way, to be clear, this is my plane nightmare.

Every bit of what you've just said, like, oh, no, no. OK, but he was a nice guy. And this is what headphones are for turns out we have a lot in common we both were fans of Battlestar Galactica we both uh we had an extended discussion of the proper I'm feeling so bad for the third person in this row we had a we had an extended discussion about the proper ranking of Star Wars uh we both played World of Warcraft and so um my god yeah it's a great guy so anyway uh I'm using my inside voice the third person in this row We both played World of Warcraft. And so. Oh, my God. Yeah. Great guy. So anyway, I'm using my inside voice.

I am the third person in this row texting my friends. You won't believe this. The two guys next to me are ranking Battlestar Galactica. That may have happened. But I'm using my. Starbuck is so amazing, you guys. I'm using my airplane voice, you know, my inside voice. So I know that everyone around me doesn't want to hear this conversation.

He is using the Bernie bro voice. He is assuming that everybody wants to hear his thoughts. And so literally from four rows down, a woman stands up, middle-aged woman stands up, middle-aged woman, stands up, walks back to our row, puts a finger in my face, my face, and says, don't you listen to a word he's saying about Hillary. It's all lies. And then turns around and stalks back. And then he looks at me and he says, that's why I'd vote for Trump over Hillary any day. And I thought, wow, that was why I'd vote for Trump over Hillary any day. And I thought, wow, that was just an interesting culture clash that I experienced.

But just out of curiosity, what airline were you on? Was this Southwest? Southwest. Yes. Yeah. I just knew it. Southwest. There's like this permission to engage that actually I do love. Yes. Yes. Like if you, it's more like a bus. It is. It's the bus or the subway of the skies. Absolutely. Yeah, and I love it. I love everything about Southwest. I'm a very loyal customer. So that's a long, overly long preface to, I cannot tell you amongst my friends,

my progressive peers from like my law school and the intensity of the antipathy against Bernie is off the charts. Off the charts. And so, you know, there's this sort of obvious youth movement for Bernie, but there's a much more hidden kind of suburban, upscale, democratic loathing of Bernie Sanders. And I just, I just think he's got a ceiling. I could be wrong. I think so far in the polls. Yeah, I could be wrong, but I just think he's got a, but I, you know, again, what's interesting is that ceiling in the polls is much, much higher than I think you would have thought if I had simply given you the demographic description of Bernie Sanders and said, what percentage do you think his ceiling is?

I don't think you would have said 22%, 25% of the Democratic primary. But that is, and a different podcast, but that is the benefit of having run for president before. We nominate one of two people in both parties. We nominate the charismatic figure. And if there's not a charismatic figure, we nominate the person who has the best infrastructure, I think is the best way to put it, which is someone who has run before and who has everything already kind of in place that they can turn on again,

really what amounts to one year after yeah using a year and a half maybe uh and so that's how you get the clinton obama trump primary winners on the charismatic side and it's how you get the romney mccain hillary uh nominations on the other side all people who had run before right so bern Bernie's no question benefiting from having run before and done quite well last time in a one-on-one match. Yeah. Yeah. I think mostly Biden's kicking himself for not running in 2016. Oh, yeah, absolutely.

You know, it's one of the things that it's easy to forget because when Hillary would be sort of outside of the public eye, her approval ratings would skyrocket. Sort of the theory of Hillary was always better than the reality of Hillary. And so running into 2016, there was this sort of theory of Hillary. It was her time. She had been, you know, she had checked every single box. She'd been the loyal soldier for Obama. There was the coalition of the ascendant, which was going to, you know, by default, virtually guarantee the Democrats the White House. That happened. That happened in 2007. Yeah, that's what's amazing.

Yeah. And then there was someone charismatic to overcome that. And then what's interesting about 2016 is there was no infrastructure candidate. Yeah. So that's why it was such a large field. And there was never really a direct challenge to Trump because there was no one who already had it built. Ted Cruz certainly came the closest to having the infrastructure already built because Texas is such a large state. He already had that donor base. But even then, a presidential campaign is just different. Running simultaneously in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina,

it's difficult to explain what that feels like, except if you had a war in, you know, China, Iraq, and Venezuela all going at once. Right, right. To bring it back to our original topic. So I'm sure we'll talk more. We need to get into Citizens United at some point and super PACs and where things land. You know, the 10 year anniversary of Citizens United is in just a couple of weeks. I know all of you have it on your calendars. So we'll celebrate that or bemoan it. No, it's a celebration. It's a great and glorious vindication of the First Amendment. So yeah, unless you're a campaign operative, in which case you're pretty annoyed. Well, there's that. There's that. But yeah, so I mean, we're going to have a ton to talk about.

We're going to have, you know, put we're going to have you know put in it at the end of the podcast let's put in a plug again for the dispatch we're incredibly gratified by the reader response so far so please go and subscribe at thedispatch.com we're going to have full website launch very soon we're going to be unrolling rolling out more podcasts very soon a lot to look forward to. And in those podcasts, you're going to have an awful lot of what Jonah calls rank punditry, which to judge from the remnant is always popular with the listeners. But we're going to be rolling out new podcasts, new web content. It's an exciting time and we're really gratified by the response so far. And

also, Sarah, I don't know if you've noticed this, but we've had a tremendous number of people already rank us on iTunes with a ton of five stars, which is deeply appreciated. So if you think about it, if you have five seconds or so, 10 seconds of spare time, please go to iTunes and rate us. It helps us a lot. But five stars only, if you don't want to do five stars. Forget I said anything, as Rich Lowry says on the Editor's Podcast at NR. But please go to iTunes and rate us, and we really appreciate those of you who have. And anything else? And I love getting um listener emails my email is sarah at the dispatch.com uh things i got wrong feedback in general um how much you dislike david but like me i love getting those well i'm already getting those they they ccu on this. Also, for those who have been following along

in the Tales of Sarah's High School years that for some reason I dove into last time, yes, my college crush did listen and email me about the podcast. It was like, was that me? Were you talking about me? That is so fantastic. I love that so much.

Yeah, and he likes our music choices. So yay, Caleb, our wonderful producer. He is a pianist. So he's into the music choices that we've been picking. Caleb's been picking. Frankly, you and I have nothing to do with it. I'm less pleased with the feedback, which has been a bunch of emails saying, Sarah's awesome. I'm like, hey, hi, I'm here. What am I, a potted plant? Oh, such a great, you know, I actually got to meet one of his sons. We went to dinner and he was like, oh yeah, my dad's the potted plant guy. And I was like, no way. This is the coolest ever. Oh, that's fantastic. And we're just going to assume that all of our listeners know what that reference is. Yeah, let's do it. Yeah. Yeah. If you don't know, then please don't Google it, but email us. Cause that way we'll know. Exactly. Exactly. Well, I think that's it. All right, David. Happy 2020. Happy 2020 and happy 2020 to our listeners. And this has been yet another edition of Advisory Opinions, and we'll be back next week. Thank you. you