Electability
Are we any closer to knowing who the Democratic nominee for president will be after the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary? Chris Cillizza of CNN did a little research and found that in the last eight elections, the candidate that was nominated finished either first or second in those two states. If this holds true to form, the nominee will be either Bernie Sanders or Pete Buttigieg, and I can't quite wrap my mind around either one.
The Iowa caucus was a cluster-fuck, with the results not known for days, but Buttigieg apparently eked out a win over Sanders. New Hampshire was the reverse, with Sanders edging out Buttigieg. But what is more interesting is how poorly Joe Biden finished--a distant fourth in the Hawkeye State and an even more dismal fifth in the Granite State. That's not good news for Joe, but there's worse news for Elizabeth Warren, who at one point this last summer was considered a front runner. She finished third in Iowa, and fourth in New Hampshire. She had a great organization in the former, and was from a neighboring state in the latter If she isn't in the top two in Nevada, the next contest, she might as well pack it in.
Biden is relying on South Carolina, because of his supposed popularity among black voters. If he doesn't win there, he's toast, but I think he is already. This is his third run for the presidency and he has yet to win a single contest. People may think Joe is a great guy, but they don't seem to want him to be president.
The third-place finish for Amy Klobuchar in New Hampshire certainly gives her candidacy a boost. She, I'm sure, is hoping that a Biden flame-out gets his voters. But she hasn't bested Buttigieg yet, who is the other so-called "mainstream" Democrat. But if she hangs around long enough, she may get the benefit of voters who think Bernie is too old and too far left and Buttigieg too young, inexperienced, or gay. Klobuchar's only baggage is being mean to her staff.
Sanders, it is said by the DNC types, will get creamed by Trump because he is an avowed socialist (it's democratic socialist, but who knows the difference?) They say he is not electable. But I don't know. I'm troubled by his age--I am uncomfortable with having someone over eighty in the White House--but polls indicate that among all candidates he beats Trump by more than the others. He inspires young voters, who are needed to win, and some are holding the election hostage, saying it's either Sanders or nobody. That's no way to win an election, but I'd be happy to have Bernie Bros come out in force.
That brings up the specter of Mike Bloomberg. He entered the race extremely late, and I have trouble figuring out who is natural supporters would be. He's a New York Jew billionaire. Does that play well in the south and Midwest? Apparently he's polling well in Florida--that makes sense--but also Texas. Of course, he has loads of money. He's the richest man ever to run for president. But for those of who are already disgusted at the plutocracy that now runs this country, I really am not keen on another out of touch rich guy in the Oval Office. And he will get hammered for some of his policies as Mayor of New York (which he served as a Republican), particularly stop and frisk, which targeted minorities. He also pulled a dickish, Trumpian move by changing the law to allow him a third term. If Bloomberg is the nominee, I'll have to hold my nose to vote for him.
New Hampshire spelled the end for three candidates--Andrew Yang, Michael Bennet, and Deval Patrick, whose campaign didn't even get started. Still hanging around are Tom Steyer, who has enough wealth to keep going, but I'm unsure what is fueling Tulsi Gabbard. She has become the least popular of any candidate. Her "present" vote for impeachment, and then her support of Trump firing Alex Vindman, further alienated her from Democrats. I suspect, though she denies it, that's gearing up for a run as an Independent. Fortunately I think she doesn't have enough supporters for that to make a difference.
So, it seems natural that we could see a Sanders/Buttigieg ticket, but in reality either one of those guys has to pick a black woman as running mate. Kamala Harris, stick by your phone. Or Stacey Abrams, which would be a dynamic if risky pick.
The Iowa caucus was a cluster-fuck, with the results not known for days, but Buttigieg apparently eked out a win over Sanders. New Hampshire was the reverse, with Sanders edging out Buttigieg. But what is more interesting is how poorly Joe Biden finished--a distant fourth in the Hawkeye State and an even more dismal fifth in the Granite State. That's not good news for Joe, but there's worse news for Elizabeth Warren, who at one point this last summer was considered a front runner. She finished third in Iowa, and fourth in New Hampshire. She had a great organization in the former, and was from a neighboring state in the latter If she isn't in the top two in Nevada, the next contest, she might as well pack it in.
Biden is relying on South Carolina, because of his supposed popularity among black voters. If he doesn't win there, he's toast, but I think he is already. This is his third run for the presidency and he has yet to win a single contest. People may think Joe is a great guy, but they don't seem to want him to be president.
The third-place finish for Amy Klobuchar in New Hampshire certainly gives her candidacy a boost. She, I'm sure, is hoping that a Biden flame-out gets his voters. But she hasn't bested Buttigieg yet, who is the other so-called "mainstream" Democrat. But if she hangs around long enough, she may get the benefit of voters who think Bernie is too old and too far left and Buttigieg too young, inexperienced, or gay. Klobuchar's only baggage is being mean to her staff.
Sanders, it is said by the DNC types, will get creamed by Trump because he is an avowed socialist (it's democratic socialist, but who knows the difference?) They say he is not electable. But I don't know. I'm troubled by his age--I am uncomfortable with having someone over eighty in the White House--but polls indicate that among all candidates he beats Trump by more than the others. He inspires young voters, who are needed to win, and some are holding the election hostage, saying it's either Sanders or nobody. That's no way to win an election, but I'd be happy to have Bernie Bros come out in force.
That brings up the specter of Mike Bloomberg. He entered the race extremely late, and I have trouble figuring out who is natural supporters would be. He's a New York Jew billionaire. Does that play well in the south and Midwest? Apparently he's polling well in Florida--that makes sense--but also Texas. Of course, he has loads of money. He's the richest man ever to run for president. But for those of who are already disgusted at the plutocracy that now runs this country, I really am not keen on another out of touch rich guy in the Oval Office. And he will get hammered for some of his policies as Mayor of New York (which he served as a Republican), particularly stop and frisk, which targeted minorities. He also pulled a dickish, Trumpian move by changing the law to allow him a third term. If Bloomberg is the nominee, I'll have to hold my nose to vote for him.
New Hampshire spelled the end for three candidates--Andrew Yang, Michael Bennet, and Deval Patrick, whose campaign didn't even get started. Still hanging around are Tom Steyer, who has enough wealth to keep going, but I'm unsure what is fueling Tulsi Gabbard. She has become the least popular of any candidate. Her "present" vote for impeachment, and then her support of Trump firing Alex Vindman, further alienated her from Democrats. I suspect, though she denies it, that's gearing up for a run as an Independent. Fortunately I think she doesn't have enough supporters for that to make a difference.
So, it seems natural that we could see a Sanders/Buttigieg ticket, but in reality either one of those guys has to pick a black woman as running mate. Kamala Harris, stick by your phone. Or Stacey Abrams, which would be a dynamic if risky pick.
Comments
Post a Comment