I Review: Three Ways Dems Could Lose in 2020

#227: Spoiler: All Three Are Wrongheaded
...................
Let's take a look at three common doom-and-gloom scenarios for Blue in 2020, and see which candidates are targeted by each:

1. The Firebrand.
In a piece for The Atlantic, Ron Brownstein identifies several issues, including Medicare For All, and Free College, that recent polling has shown to be relatively unpopular with parts of the coalition Democrats attracted in 2018.

2. The Swing-Vote Seeker.
In The New Republic, John Long suggests that 'swing voters' are the wrong focus.  Instead, Democrats should be inspiring and expanding their base--the 4 million voters who chose Obama in 2012, but who stayed home in 2016.

3. The Hopeless Optimist.
In Salon, Uwe Bolt points to the near-certainty of legislative failure, even if Blue takes the Senate, as Republicans will simply refuse to cooperate.  This pessimism could conceivably deflate the campaigns of populist candidates with ambitious plans.

Do we even need to pair up candidates with the above?  We do?  Then here they are:

The Firebrand is surely a poke at Bernie Sanders.

The Swing-Vote Seeker questions the candidacy of Joe Biden, and to a lesser extent Mayor Pete.

The Hopeless Optimist picks on Elizabeth Warren.

The problems we encounter in these articles:

1. The Firebrand critique picks out the obvious, contentious policies that have lost traction as the campaign season has unfolded; aggressive Medicare-For-All and Free College are yesterday's news.  The big bold plans with buzz now-a-days are well-reasoned, and either aren't too overly ambitious, or have 'pay-for's in place.  So, it's a public option as a first step toward a better Health Care.  And free 2-year community college--like the public option, much more focused on what could make it through congress.

2. The Swing-Vote Seeker criticism ignores where most votes are needed.  As I've argued before, whether you like it or not, a Blue presidential victory depends on speaking to midwestern voters in states like Iowa/Wisconsin; and in the Senate, attracting middle-of-the-road voters in places like Arizona, Colorado, and North Carolina.  These are all purple states, at best.  And while the Presidency will be hard for Red to retain, given how inelastic the incumbent's poll numbers have been, the battle for the Senate will involve many Red states, especially if Democrats hope to have more than a 50-seat minimum.

3. The Hopeless scenario is simply alarmist.  Given enough seats in the Senate, Democrats will be able to do without their most conservative members when setting up the Science-Based Expertise idea that would allow a case-by-case rollback of the filibuster, thus depriving obstructionists of their weapon of choice.  But, this assumes a presidential candidate with coattails in Red and Purple states.

This is why the Democrat best positioned to win in 2020 is a swing-state vote seeker with well-reasoned, moderately ambitious ideas, with 'pay-for's in place, who is comfortable talking about Mid-West (and rural, more generally) concerns.