.......................
It's tempting to look back at 2016, figure out what went wrong, and determine just how Democratic candidates need to adjust, ahead of 2020: maybe more charisma (gesticulation, speaking excitedly), or more inspiring policy (Medicare-For-All, an income guarantee).
Fortunately, neither 'lesson' from 2016 need be learned. Hillary Clinton not only won the popular vote, but dominated polling during the entire election cycle. FBI director James Comey's letter to Congress in the days before the election swung polls dramatically; this did the trick when combined with foreign interference--welcomed by the Republican candidate.
So, the only concern Dems should have at this point, since according to recent polling a full 55% of voters would definitely not vote for Trump, is whether there's anything that could possibly replicate 2016's Comey Letter effect. Considering the current president's approval rating--by far the lowest of any recent third year incumbent (despite relative prosperity) it would take a really big deal to turn around Trump's fortunes.
And yet there is such a danger that we're all aware of, but few take seriously: old age.
If either current front-runner, Biden or Bernie, is nominated, he'll be approximately 78 - 79 on election day, with a not-insignificant chance that health issues will surface. What if a minor stroke were to fell the nominee? Uncertainty would ensue, and with it the yawning maw of disruption--perhaps a Comey Letter's worth. Such a health issue could easily befall a near-80-year-old, and even if relatively minor, could cause a rethink on the part of some low-information voters. It should be noted that Hillary Clinton's single health episode (at a 9/11 memorial event) coincided with her weakest standing in the polls.
Given our current politics, an episode involving a late evening's tired, haggard appearance would almost inevitably surface, and, replayed endlessly on tape, serve to remind voters of Bernie or Biden's mortal release. Objectively, nominating the elderly is simply nuts when a major argument against another term for our current president is that he'll be older than any other successful candidate for the presidency, and a solid third of voters say they won't vote for someone in their 70s. Plus, most recent presidents have been re-elected, and that slight increase in the odds is indeed precious with so much at stake. Denying Democratic voters a 2024 re-election romp (if an elderly 2020 candidate promised to serve only one term) is electoral malpractice. And, an 83- or 84-year-old candidate running for re-election in 2024 is all but out of the question given the pressures of a modern campaign, let alone the certain decrease in that candidate's odds of winning given perceptions regarding advanced age.
Unfortunately, Democratic voters don't seem to be thinking ahead. Polls have shown that our two oldest candidates are well ahead in the polls. Of course this could change. After all, it's another full year and a half before their aging bodies would experience the near-constant stress that is non-stop campaigning. So, there's plenty of time for the field to evolve; besides, no candidate is likely to consider emergency action until the first few debates have allowed that change to be made manifest. But, by the fall, if Biden and Bernie are still well ahead in the polls, it may be time to put in place an emergency plan that for now can be shelved.
Emergency Plan 2020
As I've advocated on this blog, 2020's primary season could mark a divergence from the traditional pattern of individual candidates duking it out. Why not a candidate pair? This has been tried previously with a drop-out candidate as an early veep pick. The superior formulation, however, would be for two candidates to team up, and let voters pick the president (highest vote getter) and veep (the lower of the two).
Scenario A: Let's say Bernie and Biden are at 20% each, Harris and Buttigieg are at 13% and 8%, the rest trailing, and a large undecided contingent. If Harris and Mayor Pete team up, they have, together, more than each front-runner. And, most likely, the alliance would become the attractive, visible, middle way between the wild-haired radical and the establishment centrist, and so attract even more support.
But, Bernie and Biden both being as low as 20% is unlikely. So, something more might be needed.
Scenario B: Let's say Bernie is at 20% and Biden, 25%. So, Harris and Buttigieg add another candidate to their ticket, say, Warren. So, 13 + 8 + 7 = 28%. Warren agrees to remain a senator, but guide the Harris / Buttigieg (or vice versa) administration on economic policy.
........................................................................
Update: February 16, '20: I'm tempted to erase the rest, given how the campaign has turned out. Instead, I suggest you not read any further, but instead substitute any two of your favorite candidates for the Harris/Buttigieg 'pair', above.
Or, simply trust that none of the 70-80 -year-olds will still be kicking, come Milwaukee. Or, if they do (Sanders, Bloomberg), that they will be overtaken by the younger candidates. Ironically, it may be that older voters, who tend to support Klobuchar/Buttigieg, know all too well the vicissitudes of advanced age.
.........................................................................
But, according to Democratic primary rules, gaining delegates requires at least 15% of the vote in each state. So, it could easily be that Harris, Buttigieg and Warren would simply split their 28% three ways, which would of course be disastrous. So, let's look at one last possibility.
Scenario C: Let's say that Bernie and Biden each have 24%, Harris is at 13, Mayor Pete at 8, Warren at 7, Beto and Booker at 3%, Castro, Klobuchar, Inslee, and Yang at 2%, and Hickenlooper, Bullock and Ryan at 1, with the rest divided between others and 'undecided'. If all the candidates I've mentioned form a team, they're a combined 46%, to 24% each for Bernie and Biden.
This begins to make sense if team members pledge to stay out of other candidates' home state primaries. And while it's possible that doing this might not translate into a solid 46% for Booker in New Jersey, say, it's likely to come close, as primary voters are predominantly tuned-in politicos, and would probably understand the logic of voting for a team member. And if it were the only way to stop the two front-runners, it would be better than everyone save Biden and Bernie receiving less than 15% of the vote except in favorite-son and -daughter states.
Would this be enough for the team to win? We can't be sure, mainly because delegate allocation rules are conditional (link), and depend on things like Democratic turnout in prior elections (link). But, we can take a look, nevertheless:
Home States (limited to candidates with state-wide electoral experience or national prominence):
California: Harris
Colorado: Hickenlooper
Indiana: Buttigieg
Massachussetts: Warren
Minnesota: Klobuchar
Montana: Bullock
New Jersey: Booker
New York: Yang
Ohio: Ryan
Texas: Beto, Castro
Washington: Inslee
Using the final chart at the second link in the above paragraph, we see that these states represent 1,519 pledged delegates (votes on the first ballot) out of 3,768, with 1,884 needed to win. If the Team won 46% of the vote nationally, their home-state edge would likely put them over the top. This is because:
* The team approach would be inclusive, drawing on the strengths of each member. A voter whose preferred candidate might otherwise have been knocked out early could maintain sufficient fervor to actually vote.
* The alternatives, Biden and Bernie, would likely act to split the opposition, preventing either from getting anywhere near 50%.
* The team approach would massively increase Democratic chances in the general election. That's because team members would bring their communities to the polls.
Wait a minute, you say, How does the team concept actually work?
First, individual candidates officially pledge to honor a pact that pools all pledged delegates, promising that pool to the winner.
Second, that winner would be the candidate who received the most votes in all but candidate home states (which wouldn't count--otherwise, California vs. Montana).
Third, an average of all credentialed polls in the preceding month (likely, October '19) would be used to draft remaining states after home states are excluded; the polling average leader would receive first pick. For example, using our above example, Harris would pick first, then Mayor Pete, then Warren, etc.
Fourth, a candidate's state selections would each see that picker matched with only Biden and Bernie, with campaigning help provided by other team members.
Fifth, the winner would almost certainly become the Democratic presidential nominee, and would then choose a veep and cabinet secretaries from among the team's other members. Of course some members would be more valuable in their current elected office, and would likely ask to be left out of the selection process.
Sixth, the general election campaign would see team members bring their community's voters on board, allowing message-appropriate, localized campaigning in senate races, and maintaining the excitement from their primary candidacies. Unity in diversity.
Scenario C, continued (drafting states):
States (hypothetically) drafted, in polling order:
Harris: picks Illinois
Buttigieg: Michigan
Warren: Connecticut
Beto: Florida
Booker: Pennsylvania
Castro: Arizona
Klobuchar: Wisconsin
Inslee: Oregon
Yang: Alaska
Hickenlooper: Iowa
Bullock: Idaho
Ryan: Kentucky
Harris: Georgia
Buttigieg: North Carolina
Warren: Rhode Island
Beto: New Mexico
Booker: Virginia
Castro: Nevada
Klobuchar: Missouri
Inslee: Maryland
Yang: Hawaii
Hickenlooper: Kansas
Bullock: South Dakota
Ryan: Tennessee
Harris: South Carolina
Buttigieg: Democrats Abroad
Warren: New Hampshire
Beto: Oklahoma
Booker: Mississippi
Castro: Puerto Rico
Klobuchar: Nebraska
Inslee: Maine
Yang: American Samoa
Hickenlooper: Utah
Bullock: Wyoming
Ryan: West Virginia
Harris: Alabama
Buttigieg: Delaware
Warren: Vermont
Beto: Arkansas
Booker: Washington D.C.
Castro: Louisiana
Klobuchar: North Dakota
Inslee: Virgin Islands
Yang: Northern Marianas
Hickenlooper: Guam
But why wouldn't candidates always choose the state with the largest population? Because the formula for determining the nominee would be based on one more factor: a candidate's percentage (against Bernie and Biden) overall. So, if a candidate received 20%, 18%, 40% and 32%, compared to another candidate's 39%, 48%, 28%, and 35%, the second candidate receives a bigger multiplier. So 3 million votes, multiplied by sixth place = 6 million points. 2 million votes multiplied by 2nd place = 8 million points (five points for 1st place; four for 2nd and 3rd; three for 4th and 5th, two for 6th and 7th, and one for 8th through 12th).
Plus, as you can see from her selections, a candidate like Warren might be most interested in getting a prime cabinet post (economic policy), and want to otherwise take one for the team (being #1 in winning percentage, but not actually garnering that many points due to her picking smaller states).
Here are the above scenario's picks by candidate:
Harris: Illinois, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama
Buttigieg: Michigan, North Carolina, Democrats Abroad, Delaware
Warren: Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont
Beto: Florida, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas
Booker: Pennsylvania, Virginia, Mississippi, Washington D.C.
Castro: Arizona, Nevada, Puerto Rico, Louisiana
Klobuchar: Wisconsin, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota
Inslee: Oregon, Maryland, Maine, Virgin Islands
Yang: Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, Northern Marianas
Hickenlooper: Iowa, Kansas, Utah, Guam
Bullock: Idaho, South Dakota, Wyoming
Ryan: Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia
Who wins? Let's first eliminate the candidates who don't have the population base to win. These are candidates aiming for their party's heart, trying for the largest possible winning percentage against Biden and Bernie, hoping for a cabinet position, a reputation for effective campaigning, and a place in history: Warren, Castro, Inslee, Yang, Hickenlooper, Bullock and Ryan.
This leaves five first tier contenders: Harris, Buttigieg, Beto, Booker and Klobuchar. Now let's describe each candidate's chances in countdown order:
5. Klobuchar: She simply must reach #1 in winning percentage because she has a relatively small base population.
4. Beto: While he has Florida, with its enormous population, he must do well there, which will be a challenge with Florida's retirees perhaps preferring older candidates.
3. Booker: He's the only candidate who could possibly do well enough in Pennsylvania (against Biden), since New Jersey is close by. That'll be tough.
2. Buttigieg: Can he win by a big enough percentage in Bernie (Michigan) and Biden (Delaware) territory?
1. Harris: She has the population base, but will she be able to multiply it with more than a '1' or '2'?
All five have a decent chance in this scenario, so that all candidates, including those looking to the future, would have to seriously consider joining the pact.
Though Scenario C is perhaps the most interesting, the most likely is probably 'A', where two candidates team up to become a attention-getting middle-way between the whiff of Bernie radicalism and the hint of Biden centrism.
...............................
Additional facets that we've not explored in this piece:
* Are primary contests open to voters from other parties? Some are.
* Is each state's contest a primary or a caucus? All but 2-4 are primaries.
* What are the earliest/latest filing deadlines for the 57 primaries/caucuses, and could candidates remove their names from the ballot after initially filing?
To explore these additional facets, check out the list of primaries/caucuses, here.
As for filing deadlines and erasing a ballot presence, Scenario C could be implemented with names of 'non-competing' candidates left on the ballot, but this would be unsettling, given the 15% threshold. More likely, assuming ballot access to be non-reversible, is that two candidates form a pair as president/veep (with voters deciding), and hope that the attention thus generated would be enough for both to receive 15% in enough states to win.
No comments:
Post a Comment