What Are The Odds?
.....................
Those good at predicting the future tend to shy away from presidential contests; too many unknowns in years with no clear frontrunner--especially so if the field is large. But that won't stop me, since I don't have a career as a pundit.
Here's my quasi-objective system: I rank each candidate on four attributes (Good Humor, Charisma, Policy, and Demographics), assigning 0-10 points for each, then add up all points and see who our most likely candidate is. First, the Democratic nomination:
Using the top 13 candidates from a previous post (link), I've moved a few candidates up/down (thanks to a better look at several) and have:
Joe Biden. Good Humor: 9 Charisma: 5 Policy: 5 Demographics: 2
Kirsten Gillibrand. Humor: 3 Charisma: 5 Policy: 7 Demographics: 6
Steve Bullock. Humor: Charisma: Policy: Demographics:
Michael Bloomberg. Humor: 4 Charisma: 3 Policy: 8 Demographics: 3
John Hickenlooper. Humor: 6 Charisma: 4 Policy: 6 Demographics: 6
Hillary Clinton. Humor: 4 Charisma: 6 Policy: 9 Demographics: 4
Jay Inslee. Humor: Charisma: Policy: Demographics:
Kamala Harris. Humor: 5 Charisma: 6 Policy: 7 Demographics: 7
Beto O’Rourke. Humor: 5 Charisma: 7 Policy: 5 Demographics: 8
Elizabeth Warren. Humor: 6 Charisma: 5 Policy: 10 Demographics: 5
Julian Castro. Humor: 7 Charisma: 8 Policy: 5 Demographics: 7
Cory Booker. Humor: 9 Charisma: 7 Policy: 6 Demographics: 6
Amy Klobuchar. Humor: 8 Charisma: 5 Policy: 8 Demographics: 9
And what do I mean by "Good Humor, "Charisma", "Policy", and "Demographics"? Well, here's a discussion of each candidate with those criteria in mind:
Biden: He's comfortable in his own skin (good humor), but other than that, he doesn't have the Charisma, nor policy record to keep the good grades coming. In fact, like his Demographics (older, white male, Eastern state) his policy record over the years has big potholes (voted for the Iraq war, for tightening bankruptcy regulations, etc.). But, he has two pluses that would likely boost his overall score into the mid-20s, namely, that he has the stature (former Senator, Veep) and appeals to a key demographic: White, blue collar men (for practical-minded voters). Score 21 (bonus 2 + 3) = 26
Gillibrand: She has a keen grasp of several important issues (generally, 'me too' concerns, health care); but, though she's young, and female, she represents an eastern state, New York, and doesn't yet have the experience that allows one's charisma to blossom. Score = 21
Bloomberg: A former mayor of New York, wealthy businessman (Bloomberg TV, etc.), and successful funder of noteworthy causes, his score reaches this high because of bonuses (for executive experience and wealth). Score: 18 (bonus 2 + 1) = 21
Hickenlooper: The former governor of Colorado has the electoral success, business background, and centrist views to win in the general election (imagine Arizona tipping Blue thanks to Hickenlooper--a solid Blue west would mean a much easier path to 270). But not many voters sense these things (as opposed to Biden's bonus points, which are easier to fathom). Score = 22
Clinton: 2016's nominee probably has what it takes to win. She knows policy inside out, and has a sense of what isn't and what is possible, policy-wise, in that attempt to win. The fact that she was likely a victim of electoral theft shouldn't diminish her appeal. But she's four years older. Score = 23
Harris: She has no down-side, scoring well across the board. Though not over-powering in any of our four categories, she has room to develop. The one possible draw-back is that she hails from California, rather than from a state/region where her roots might tip the balance.
I watched her appearance on Colbert recently, and have sympathy for anyone in her shoes. She couldn't announce her candidacy quite yet, so, was reserved. No doubt the experience gave her a chance to see what running would be like. Score: 25
O'Rourke: It's tempting to rank O'Rourke higher, across the board, especially his Charisma. But he's young (humor), and relatively middle-of-the-road compared to the national Democratic electorate (policy). His Charisma has great potential, because he's the genuine article; and a young, energetic champion from Texas is Demographic gold (if Texas turned Blue, the election would be all over before it even started; the youth vote, meanwhile, is something candidate Obama showed how to bring out).
Score: 25
Warren: The only candidate to rank as a '10' in any category, her policy ideas are right on the money. Forcing corporations to value their workers and their social footprint, rather than just being greedy, is the inventive Edison Medicine. Her populism is not only right for what ails us, it's popular, and could conceivably pull the typical blue collar voter over to the Democratic column. But, she's older, and comes from the East coast--Massachusetts no less. Score: 26
Castro: Normally, charisma develops in tandem with a career. In Castro's case, he's a natural. And, like O'Rourke, he's a Texan with the potential to turn the state Blue. He even has many progressive issue positions that would appeal to the Democrat base, but he probably doesn't have the experience to hammer away, or propose new ideas, the way a Warren does. But, it's early days. Score: 26
Booker: Booker seems to bubble over with good humor. In fact, it's tempting to give him a '10'. He makes friends with those he meets. Would this translate to a national audience? His policy grasp is good, and he's known for working with Republicans to pass legislation. Unfortunately, he's a senator from a reliably Blue eastern states, New Jersey, and he's unmarried. But he projects youth, vigor, excitement, and drive, which is why he's this close to #1. Score: 28
Klobuchar: She's the under-the-radar candidate, with average Charisma, but with a naturalness and unthreatening manner that would appeal to many mid-westerners--which is what Democrats probably need to nail down a win (Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, maybe even Ohio). And with Iowa the first contest of a compact primary election season, she has a likely come-from-behind scenario all but written out for her. Score: 30
Since I last posted this list, I've moved O'Rourke up several spaces, and given Biden several bonus points--I still think it unlikely that he'll run, however.
Further Update (1/31): Good news and (possibly) bad for Harris. Her announcement unfolded brilliantly, evincing a truly professional organization. The possibly bad news: she's on tape suggesting all private health insurance could be done away with. This places her in the vanguard, but could be used to scare general election voters. A more prudent approach would be to embrace alternatives to disfunction, in general terms. But, this is a race to capture the nomination, so the next time I publish this list, she'll likely have moved up a few spaces.
Note: Montana governor Bullock and Washington governor Inslee are yet to be rated, since I've yet to see them live. Also, on the Republican side, Maryland governor Hogan has indicated an interest.
And now on to the Republicans--this time as general election candidates:
Donald Trump: Humor: 0 Charisma: 9 Policy: 4 Demographics: 4
Mike Pence: Humor: 1 Charisma: 4 Policy: 6 Demographics: 9
Mitt Romney: Humor: 6 Charisma: 5 Policy: 6 Demographics: 5
John Kasich: Humor: 6 Charisma: 5 Policy: 7 Demographics: 9
Trump: At this point, he's a basket case. He's obviously guilty of myriad crimes and bad calls. He insists on sticking to his base of 40%, refusing to appeal to others. He never smiles (naturally). His theatrical Charisma has probably lost all its power to win over the undecided. His policy set will bring him the nomination if he lasts that long, but he needs bonus points to come anywhere near the top ten Democrats. An older, over-weight, big-mouth white guy from the east coast who's clearly out of his depth ranks a disastrous '4' on demographics (minor appeal to rural, blue collar workers). Score: 17 (bonus points: 9, for sitting president) = 26
Pence: He's ready and waiting for a bullpen call. If he gets it, he'll likely seem a lot more formidable than he does now. Much of his on-screen presence has seemed stifling--just appearing 'proper'; so, not much Charisma, let alone 'good humor'. Otherwise, he'd be a likely candidate in that he comes from the midwest. Score: 20 (bonus points are less for unelected Prez): 6 = 26
Romney: An average rating with nothing that says 'exciting', or 'I'm the one'. But, he was the Republican nominee in 2012. Now a senator from Utah, he could claim some relevancy in a state like Arizona or perhaps Nevada (he won AZ in 2012, but lost NV to Obama). A likely loser in an age when corporate restructuring (his business specialty) is viewed with deserved suspicion. Score: 22
Kasich: The obvious choice if the Republicans want to win. Being the former governor of Ohio, he could appeal to midwestern voters that Red needs to win. He's jolly at times, but comes across as serious. Unfortunately for him, he's less than the Trump base would like in a conservative. If Trump departs, expect Kasich to either fight it out with Pence for the nomination, or clear the field for him. Score: 27
...........................
Update: 1/12/19
Ok, I've gotten some push-back on Klobuchar, and have now studied her perceived less-than-progressive votes in the senate (link, just click on an issue, then a sub-category, to see how her votes were judged), and agree that she may have a few weaknesses in an electorate of only Democratic voters: Gun Control (carrying guns on Amtrak, for example); Privacy (allow government spying on US citizens); Health Care (removing a tax--that supported ObamaCare--on pediatric devices, also not approving additional funding for CHIP); GMOs (not requiring GMO labeling on food packages); and Trade (approving the free-trade agreement with Panama). All relatively minor concerns.
Now, it's tempting to explain away these questionable votes as horse-trading, voting strategically, or maintaining a reputation for common sense (for example, she voted for an amendment to ObamaCare that would prevent any families making $200,000 or less from having to pay more in taxes as a result of the ACA--it was likely a poison pill, meant to sabotage; but did she know ahead of time that it would fail?), but, tempting or not, I wasn't there to know, and so I won't try to explain. Suffice it to say that tacking to the center is not necessarily a bad thing if it means the odds of your side losing a senate seat are considerably less.
Same goes for the presidency. The more cautious you are, the less interested you're likely to be in ambitious proposals like Free College, Jobs For All, Guaranteed Incomes, Single-Payer Health Care, Reparations for Black and Native Americans, the Decriminalization of Drugs, not to mention the Decriminalization of Sex Work, even though a case, convincing or not, can be made on humanitarian grounds for each. And caution is sometimes the difference between winning and losing.
Candidates pick issues to identify with based on the possible, as they see it, with an eye to judging what is doable. That's just politics. It's like deciding whether to ask your friend to stop swearing when you're together in public. Or, considering a word to your spouse about helping the homeless. Is saying something worth it in the long run? Politicians make equivalent decisions all the time. That's how we know whether they've got what it takes.
No comments:
Post a Comment