Who will the Democratic nominee be in 2020? That was the chatter at Nate Silver’s 538, in a sort of Round Table discussion that they call a snake draft. As a libertarian-ish Independent in a swing state, I just wanted to mention my thoughts about some of their top possibilities.
- Elizabeth Warren. Ugh. About the only things she really has going for her (not with me, with the electorate) are that she’s fairly well-known nationally, she’s a woman and she has a portfolio, as it were, akin to Bernie Sanders’s– superficial egalitarianism. She could probably win the Democratic primary, but not the general election. The policy superficiality aside, her flaws are the long, public history of her whoring after minority status as a Leftist status symbol, and the fact that she’s condescending and schoolmarmish in an intensely irritating way.
- Kamala Harris. Who? Yeah, I know, a senator from California. As though that were a swing state. Yes, she’d get lotsa donations from the Golden State, but 2016 proved yet again that money has a limited impact on political victories. Apart from that, she’s just another generic Democrat chasing after “historic!”
- Kirsten Gillbrand. Known to me chiefly for having been handed Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat in deep-blue New York. This was after Hillary was handed it, served without much distinction, lost her one competitive race before 2016, and was handed the Secretaryship of State. That particular office is not exactly one that tempers a politician in the white-hot flame of competitiveness. (True, fewer are these days.) Basically a nobody, as far as I’m concerned.
- Joe Biden. A long-experienced politician, originally from purple Pennsylvania, nationally known with Executive branch experience. That he’s not at the top of everyone’s list speaks volumes about the Democratic Party’s poisonous addiction to identity politics and party identity narrative. He’d be the one candidate who could actually get the Presidency by winning it, rather than by the Republican candidate losing it.
- Eric Holder. In baseball terms, near as I can tell, Holder would be the equivalent of a .240 hitter in AA ball. What does he have apart from being black and anyone at all having heard his name? (Another generic Democrat chasing after “historic!”– but Obama has picked most of the low-hanging fruit.)
- Beto O’Rourke. Why on earth are so many candidates with tiny resumes at the top of the Democratic list? On the list at all, sure, but he’s like the 50-1 shot at the Kentucky Derby, and should be way down the list. His inclusion here is likely an example of recency bias. Unless he wins, which isn’t likely, a year or two from now people will barely remember him.
- Cory Booker. Probably one of the stronger candidates, not because he’s black (see above about the low-hanging fruit) but because he actually has something resembling a struggle, as mayor of Newark, and executive experience, and some history of bipartisanship.
- Bernie Sanders. Not a likely event, due to his age. Yes, Trump’s almost as old, but seems one hell of a lot more vigorous.
- Michael Avenatti. He brings to mind O Brother, Where Art Thou? In that movie, the challenger in the Mississippi gubernatorial election is winning in the polls with a shtick about being for the “little man”, with a midget on the platform to agree with him, and the governor’s son says, “We could hire our own midget, even shorter than his.” Avenatti would be the Democrats hiring their own midget.
- Oprah Winfrey. She might actually be formidable against Trump– nationally known and admired, being at least somewhat self-made through fighting her way upward, having been successful in business. But on the other hand, maybe not; being on a TV show where she gets to pick the guests and topics probably doesn’t prepare you that well for politics. And in any case, she’s not running, which is probably why she’s at the bottom of the 538 discussion.
There were other candidates on the list, but the 538 people were really scraping the bottom of the barrel at that point, and my remark about most of them would amount to “who?”.