State of the Race

Is the Path to the Nomination Any Clearer?

William Sundwick

We’ve now had two real contests in the 2020 Democratic Presidential primary. There are still polls which we are told are scientifically designed and administered. But, finally, we’re getting down to actual voting. What have we learned so far?

After the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 11, it’s now safe to say that there are five top tier competitors awaiting Michael Bloomberg’s attempt to buy the presidency. It appears that the early states (IA, NH, NV, SC) will eliminate any other contenders – they’re already “suspending” their campaigns at an increasing rate. Super Tuesday on March 3 is the crucial date. My prediction is that we will, by then, have the top two contenders. But I cannot predict beyond that. Will it be a brokered convention in July?

As of now, these are the five top Democratic candidates for president by delegate count:

Bernie Sanders:  Seemingly the overall best bet to win the nomination – except for one glaring problem. He is opposed by the entire Democratic Party establishment! He has the most avid supporters, and they’re young – hence represent the future of the Party. He has the most money (except for the billionaires who are self-financing), and his “base” is probably the most diverse of any candidate’s. The only groups reluctant (or fearful) of getting behind him are the old folks and the affluent. One complication in his path to the nomination: those groups are over-represented among primary (and especially caucus) voters. Traditionally, they’re the ones who show up!

Pete Buttigieg:  After a substantial boost in both early contests – largely because of the arcane first and second alignment rules in Iowa, where he picked up the most support from “non-viable” candidates – Mayor Pete has recently benefited as the “unity candidate.”  He’s probably the establishment’s best hope now of countering Bernie. Old people like him as that “nice young man, and smart, too!” He hasn’t said anything that is too threatening to anybody. And, his supporters can claim to be “woke” because he’s gay with a fine husband. Some polling indicates that young, prosperous, college-educated white people are also included in Mayor Pete’s base.

Elizabeth Warren: Sadly, Liz came in a weak third in Iowa, worse in New Hampshire. News from her campaign was that she was pulling ads in Nevada and South Carolina. Those of us who count ourselves as her supporters felt we needed to step up, both financially and time commitment. She needed us. Her base is apparently white, well-educated members of what is known by Bernie supporters as the PMC (“Professional Managerial Class”). Of course, this group knows best what is good for the country – and must educate everybody else accordingly. My whole family (two generations) are Warren supporters. But, alas, we may need to “check our privilege” – perhaps we don’t represent the heart and soul of America?

Amy Klobuchar: Suddenly, after the New Hampshire primary, Amy has finally realized the “Klobmentum” that commentators have been predicting. Her third-place finish, very close to Pete, and ahead of both Liz and Joe, has caused us to re-evaluate her campaign. Not only does she rip the women’s candidate mantle from Warren but has now transcended her Iowa message of running for “President of the Midwest.” Her message seems to be a positive one: “You’re great people and I like you!” This contrasts with Bernie’s more negative: “Let’s fight the bad guys together!” Both appeal to unity, but positive phrasing often trumps negative.

Joe Biden: Only a few weeks ago, the RCP polling average had Biden on top. What happened? Well, in short, it was Iowa. The fact that he could only muster fourth place in that very selective contest seems to have knocked the wind out of his sails. When Joe gets knocked off his easy-going style he tends to stumble. So, New Hampshire became a make-or-break test for his campaign. It was not good. His base has been much like Bernie’s, except inverted in one critical metric – age! And, a large swath of the Democratic Party elite (the Hillary wing from 2016) have been all-in for Joe from the beginning.

None of the other candidates matter at this point. Andrew Yang, Deval Patrick, and Michael Bennet dropped out after New Hampshire, only Tom Steyer and Tulsi Gabbard remain -- who cares? They may be angling for book deals, cabinet posts, future Senate elections – but, surely, neither expect to be president, or even nominees. And, Mike Bloomberg waits in the wings as we consume his barrage of advertising, even generating polling support and endorsements.

While I believe that any of the top five candidates mentioned above can easily beat Trump, assuming they manage half-way intelligent campaigns in the general election, we did also expect that of Hillary Clinton in 2016. Much attention has been paid by the media to the different “lanes” that these candidates occupy. It seems the underlying assumption in such talk is that some collection of policy positions, an ideology, is a more probable path to victory in November than some other such collection. I respectfully disagree with that assumption. I think most voters don’t identify with specific policy positions nearly as much as they have emotional reactions to the public persona of each candidate. But, if there were different lanes of policy among the top tier candidates, the campaign thus far has made Bernie the sole inhabitant of the Left Lane – he expects to blunt the attacks from Republicans by openly identifying as a “Democratic Socialist,” much as Mayor Pete openly identifies as gay. Once somebody comes out, the attack can easily be turned against the attacker. Not as much an issue as many in the media fear.

Warren has lately sought to move away from that Left Lane, thinking that her main opponent is Pete rather than Bernie. If she is seeking to rise to a solid second choice, that may work. She can attain that status by splitting the difference between Bernie and Pete. Pete is very slippery, hard to pin down to a single lane. Biden clearly dominates the Right Lane among top Democratic contenders. His long history in the Senate, as well as his role in the Obama administration, may allow him to call himself “progressive” by the standards of 20 years ago, but times have changed. Nowadays, the eight years of Obama look like years of moderation and compromise, even a betrayal to some Democratic constituencies. As we know, much of this is due to the astounding lurch to the right of the Republican opposition. And Joe still thinks his strength is that he can “work with” Republicans. Amy echoes much of Biden’s posturing in this regard but may have better control over her messaging. She could be the compromise between Pete and Liz if she works on that.

What about Bloomberg and Tom Steyer? The billionaires self-funding their campaigns may yet be the wild cards in this race. But, with Bloomberg entering the debates because of a rule change, we may see further scrutiny of his profoundly undemocratic quest for the presidency – if that is even his goal. While all candidates are trying to sell themselves to the American people, there seems to be something especially crass about doing it mainly through purchased TV (and online) ads. How many Bloomberg rallies have there been in primary states? How many Bloomberg canvassers will we see knocking on doors? One wonders if Bloomberg isn’t more interested in protecting his fortune from a new regime in Washington than anything else.

If Super Tuesday does not produce a wide delegate lead for one or two candidates, then the prospect grows for a brokered convention. This would mean that the final Democratic contest would be on the convention floor in Milwaukee. Delegates would be traded among candidates, and starting with the second ballot, superdelegates again rear their ugly heads, as in 2016. Today, with only two contests involving actual voting behind us, it’s too soon to speculate on such an event. Iowa was essentially too close to call for the top two, and New Hampshire has produced what will likely be equally short-lived headlines and bounce. Nevada caucuses and South Carolina represent two more peculiar, non-representative, states. March 3 awaits.

Debate in Detroit

Is Bloody Combat What We Wanted?

William Sundwick

This is getting to be a spectacle. The second Democratic Presidential Debate was held July 30 and 31 in Detroit. It was marked by much more visceral combat than the first debate in Miami a month earlier. Was this by design? Or, has the temper of Democrats become more frayed over the last month?

The stage was set for the first night, Tuesday, featuring the two giants of the left, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, getting rolled by a gang of lesser polling moderates. Then Wednesday was to be the trial by fire for the titular leader of the pack, Joe Biden. CNN chose its team of moderators: Jake Tapper, Dana Bash and Don Lemon – experts in following the prescribed format emphasizing attack and rebuttal. That appeared to be the plan.

Mostly, it worked. If this is what you wanted, you got it in spades. Night One saw ideological divides drawn sharply between Sanders/Warren (who continued to live up to their reputed non-aggression pact) on the left versus the rest of the stage, except perhaps Pete Buttigieg and Marianne Williamson (independent paths?). Beto O’Rourke seemed lost, not knowing where to place himself. Rebuttals are always easier than affirmative cases in debating, so the dynamic clearly favored Sanders/Warren. Similarly, Night Two tended to favor Biden – he appeared more confident than during the first debate, at least when he kept on script. He even managed a barrage of counterattacks against his tormenters (especially Kamala Harris and Cory Booker).

But some read Biden’s flailing counterattacks as a sign of weakness -- exasperation at continuously playing defense. It seems unwarranted, considering he still holds the lead in polling. He probably got his greatest respite when other candidates chose, instead, to go after each other! Harris vs. Tulsi Gabbard was a good example, or Bill De Blasio vs. Julian Castro. Both secondary fights were initiated with a parrying thrust by one against the criminal justice record of the other. Gabbard had much of the same ammunition that Biden was also using against Harris’ prosecutorial history. Castro attacked De Blasio for refusing to fire the officer who choked Eric Garner to death. Neither target recovered well, and it served to take heat off Biden, at least temporarily.

CNN’s attempt to direct the tone of the debate toward more combat has been seen by some analysts, and candidates afterwards, as an unfair bias toward Republican talking points. If this was the tactic it was entirely appropriate though. Whoever wins the nomination will face those talking points in the general. Nevertheless, it’s not clear that the strategy succeeded in avoiding the obfuscation and deflection that many lamented in the Miami debate. Buttigieg grandstanded when he faced the viewing audience and advised any Republican office holders who might be watching to think of their “legacy” in the history books. Not sure any of them care. Harris declared that Trump’s tariffs are “betraying the American people.” That seemed a tad hyperbolic. But it did heighten the dramatic tension of the event.

Who emerged in an unexpected better position than they went in? Possibly Andrew Yang on Night Two? John Delaney scored a hit on Night One when he became the main spokesperson for the “revolt of the centrists.” And, looking at Sanders and Warren as a tag team, rather than opponents, on Night One was refreshing. One can even fantasize a Sanders/Warren (or Warren/Sanders) ticket in 2020. Their posture on Tuesday was more akin to a “good cop/bad cop” scenario (or A/B marketing tool) than anything else.

With more stringent entrance requirements for the third debate in September, it’s unlikely we’ll see more than seven or eight on stage in Houston. Looking at polling, and performance in Detroit, it seems most likely that we won’t have John Hickenlooper, Tim Ryan, or Jay Inslee to kick around. Likewise, Steve Bullock or Kirsten Gillibrand (she came across Night Two as the less confident “new kid” at the cafeteria lunch table trying desperately to be accepted by the “cool kids”). In any case, getting to 2% from 1% polling average AND doubling total donations is a high hurdle for many of the two dozen candidates.

Even with fewer on-stage appearances, the third debate on September 12 and 13, hosted by ABC, will probably continue to feature drama and spectacle over substance. But perhaps we can divine something about the candidates’ characters from that? Even if we can’t decipher their policy positions.

And the First Debate Is History

What Did We Learn?

William Sundwick

On June 26 and June 27, the DNC sponsored its first Presidential Candidates’ Debate, in Miami. It was hosted by NBC/MSNBC/Telemundo. Who won? Who lost? Did we learn anything? Were there any memorable lines?

Twenty (alleged) candidates for president in 2020 faced off in the two-night spectacle. Everybody watching wanted to see blood on the floor. None of us wants to choose between twenty different politicians and other aspirants very much longer. We want fewer choices for next month’s debate in Detroit, fewer still by September, when the DNC qualifying requirements will be stiffer.

The moderators called the shots. It was Lester Holt, Savannah Guthrie, Jose Diaz-Balart, Rachel Maddow, and Chuck Todd – collectively representing the unspoken corporate interests of the Comcast/NBC Universal empire – who determined the questions to ask, and to whom they would be directed. The ten candidates first night were not asked the same questions as the ten on stage for night two. Yes, all candidates presumably had equal chance to raise their hand in rebuttal, or additional elaboration, so we were told. There was crosstalk and shouting at one another allowed (especially on night two).

The live audience was instructed to restrain themselves -- they laughed at that admonition.

But we still did learn some things. We learned that early labels on the left-right spectrum for the various candidates were probably too simplistic. We learned that some candidates preferred to define themselves by what they were against more than by what they were for. As a high school debater many decades ago, I remember the coach assuring me that the negative position is far easier to sustain than the affirmative (assigning me, a junior, less-skilled, debater to a negative team). And in a few cases, we learned about policy positions we hadn’t heard before, perhaps invented for the occasion?

Also, we learned some things about candidates’ personalities. This leads to the loaded question: what kind of personality makes for the most successful president? We think being forceful about your beliefs is important. Many candidates were. Others tried, with varying degrees of credibility, to sound committed to certain policies.  If they are practicing politicians, we have their voting records to check.

Overly cautious is not a good look in a forum like this. Some candidates sought to differentiate themselves from the main firebrand on the stage (Bernie Sanders) by appearing more cautious, or “realistic” (John Delaney), but that generally led to a performance that most viewers would consider a loss. Optics this year do not favor either caution or reasonableness!

My conclusion from two nights of the first Democratic Candidates’ Debate is that my preferences changed little. My ranking of the top three candidates going into the debates was: 1) Warren, 2) Sanders, 3) Harris. Coming out, only one ranking changed (tentatively): 1) Warren, 2) Harris, 3) Sanders. I guess I thought Kamala Harris’ prosecutorial zeal directed against Joe Biden was impressive. But not much else changed my mind.

That is not to say there weren’t some memorable comments by some of the candidates, which further clarified in my mind who they were but had little effect on my top picks. Here is a rundown of those moments:

Strength vs. caution: this includes clarity of positions.  Andrew Yang was clear in how he would finance his UBI of $1000/month for every American -- a Value Added Tax (VAT) -- okay, don’t care what that means, we know it’s used throughout Europe for public finance. Kamala Harris was emphatic when she stated: “nobody should have to work more than one job in order to provide food and shelter for their family,” cool. Joe Biden, on the other hand, was full of equivocation, getting bogged down in abstruse details of how universal health care would work (he’s against Sanders’ Medicare-for-All). Elizabeth Warren was asked what she would do about Mitch McConnell and the Senate blocking everything good, she replied “I have a plan for Mitch McConnell!” (to thunderous applause from audience). Also, there were statements that fit the old saw “Where’s the Beef?” (Walter Mondale’s 1984 debate line against Gary Hart) – e.g., Biden saying we need to “restore dignity to the middle class” (how?), Julian Castro is in favor of “common sense gun reform” (whatever),  Marianne Williamson invented a label for the absent health care system in the U.S., deriding it as “a sickness management system” (meaning what?), and Bernie Sanders totally ducked the hypothetical, “Roe v. Wade is overturned, what would you do?” (perhaps a bad question from Maddow?).

Most combative moments: these might be either good or bad – Warren asserted the need to FIGHT, make the Roe v. Wade SCOTUS decision LAW! Amy Klobuchar shouted out to Russia: stop stealing our elections!  Sanders’ closing statement asserted, “we need guts to make things change!”  Warren will “give Congress 100 days” to get their act together, then ban assault weapons by executive order. And, the most famous moment of the entire two nights: Harris’ full-frontal attack on Biden for his racist connections in the old Senate, considered by some pundits to be a game-changer so far in the primary.

Humor: sadly, not much humor was visible on either night, it would have gone far toward warming our hearts to some of these candidates. Eric Swalwell did illustrate something when he said “as a parent of a two-year-old,” changing dirty diapers often smelled better than serving in Congress – and Harris managed to interject some early levity into night two, when she managed to get the floor after a cross-talking shouting match saying “America doesn’t want to see a food fight” (setting the tone successfully for the rest of the evening). Humor might have been used to establish dominance of one candidate over another -- but wasn’t.

Magnanimity: some candidates feel they can trade on magnanimity, or generosity, as part of their persona. We saw examples of this personality trait (contrasting with current occupant of the oval office) from Kirsten Gillibrand, who took pains to describe her objection to Sanders’ program by saying “there’s a difference between capitalism and greed” (won’t dispute that).  Or from Harris, who gently admonished the president by saying he “could use his microphone in a respectful way.” Cory Booker offered on the first night that the “humane” way to deal with immigrants is not to criminalize their being here in the first place, thereby offering full support to Julian Castro, who had just floored the audience with his detailed proposal to repeal sec. 1325 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (which most of us never knew by its full legal name).

Winners and losers:  hard to say, but we always want to evaluate performances in such debates. The most new Twitter followers coming out of night one went to Julian Castro, but that may have been simply because he was less well-known around the country – and, he impressed viewers. The post-debate analysis after night two, by the MSNBC and CNN crews, was that Kamala Harris hit it out of the park when she landed squarely on Biden. Biden lost, Harris gained, but so did Warren after night one, and Buttigieg and Yang after night two.

Let’s be honest, we want to see some clear losers at this point – more than winners. If Williamson struck out on the second night, so be it. If Gillibrand or O’Rourke just seem too glib to be believed, fine. This is what we wanted from the debate. We don’t care about John Hickenlooper and his assertion that “socialism isn’t the answer” any more than Delaney’s belief in a “realistic” policy approach. We object to Tim Ryan’s characterization of anybody living on the east or west coast as part of the “elite,” out of touch with fly-over country. And, we don’t want the country run by a Silicon Valley tech geek who won’t even wear a tie on the debate stage (Andrew Yang).

Many of them probably hope for cabinet posts or book deals. That’s fine with me. I just want to see no more than five or six on stage by the third debate in September.

All Dem presidential candidates sorted by three strategies? a) unity (Biden's bi-partisan "epiphany"; b) revolution (Bernie's political mass movement); c) change the system (Warren's anti-corruption measures, seriously almost more left than Bernie!)