15 days away, the top 4 scrambles for an Iowa victory.

It has now been close to a year since I last wrote anything for this blog, and while I know no one has been waiting for me to do so I felt the need to continue. The main reason? The Iowa caucuses are now exactly 15 days away and we are headed for a photo finish.

As of today, the candidates with a reasonabe chance at an Iowa victory are former Vice-President Joe Biden, Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg has lapped other minor candidates in the moderate lane, even those that looked great on paper (Steve Bullock comes to mind), while Senators Sanders and Warren compete for dominance within the progressive electorate. All the while, the Vice-President continues to cruise ahead in national polls, strong and stable and running a wave of perceived electability.

Joe Biden has managed a difficult feat: maintaining a lead in national polls throughout the primary season. The only candidate who has come even somwhat close to disputing that lead is Elizabeth Warren, who now is back in third place behind Bernie Sanders. His amazingly stable support, even if it isn’t that big a base, has been his main advantage during the year, and it may be a big reason as to why he’s still perceived as the most electable candidate against President Trump. However, this all pertains to his national standing. How is ol’ Joe doing in Iowa?

The answer is… complicated. As of today, Joe Biden leads the FiveThirtyEight polling average in Iowa by about 2%, although that lead is mostly coasting off of a questionable poll commissioned by the far-right news outlet Breitbart. Before that, he was in a dead heat with Sanders for first place. Thus, Joe Biden is underperforming in Iowa relative to his national support. That does not mean his support in Iowa is weak, though, as a first place in Iowa would almost surely make the rest of the primary calendar a walk in the park for the Vice-President thanks to his widespread minority support.

Senator Sanders is in second-best position to take the Iowa caucuses, so what would that entail for him? Well, for starters, it would mean he would be likely to carry both New Hampshire and Nevada to his camp, which would strengthen his position. After that, it’s mainly a question of how much Biden’s african-american support is willing to change into a Sanders outfit. If Sanders also wins South Carolina, then he’s off to the races.

Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg’s campaigns would likely be done if they don’t win a plurality of caucusgoers. Pete Buttigieg’s support is very light elsewhere, and the Senator’s sympathizers are still double guessing their support. An Iowa victory could take them very far, but anything short of that would mean near-certain doom for their organizations.

I’ll be taking an in-depth look at all of these candidates along the week, as this is only a quick piece to get back into the habit. I’m looking forward to covering the caucuses on this blog, and I hope all two of you will join me!

Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard and the rest.

On December 31st, 2018, Elizabeth Warren announced that she was forming an exploratory committee to consider a run for president. This is the first step many candidates take in their journey for the presidency, and Warren is already touring through early states like Iowa and New Hampshire. It would be, to put it mildly, pretty damn unprecedented for her to not run for president after announcing an exploratory committee.

I have been pretty bullish on Elizabeth Warren in the past, but she’s had some rough patches since I published my last entry on this blog: bad net favorability ratings, dwindling enthusiasm, poll numbers falling, etc. And let’s not forget the whole DNA test debacle. All in All, the senator from Massachussets has seen her stock in the upcoming primary decline in the last month.

However, she still is one of the leaders of the progressive movement in the Democratic Party, and even if her results end up underwhelming she would need to be shut down before she wasn’t a force to contend with anymore. What I’m trying to say is: Senator Warren is going to be a pretty formidable candidate, and most other candidates who plan on winning are going to have to deal with her very high ceiling of possible support.

Candidates like Elizabeth Warren work because she appeals to both Party Loyalists (as Nate Silver calls them) and the left. She has been very progressive on a wide range of issues; from Medicare-for-all to free college, while also being part of senate leadership. She has influence inside the Senate’s Democratic caucus and has worked with leadership since she was elected in 2012.

I have already talked extensively about Warren in different entries, so I won’t repeat myself. But her running doesn’t only impact her chances.

Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont was probably counting on an Elizabeth Warren run not happening, as they both have strength among Millennials and the left. If Warren hadn’t run, then Sanders would probably have had more of a base to build upon and, consequently, an easier time. Sanders doesn’t seem to be going back on his efforts to run though, and POLITICO just released a piece about how he has «staffed up» recently, so who knows. Most relevant candidates should have announced by March, April at the latest, and the campaign will start to heat up soon thereafter when the first debate happens in June.

Another candidate that has announced her candidacy recently is Tulsi Gabbard, representative from Hawaii. I don’t believe Gabbard will really register at all in polls or debates, purely because there are so many attack lines. The social-conservative views that she used to hold, her meetings with Assad, etc. She has said that she has left her conservative views behind, but a lot of people are still skeptical. Just look at a recent debacle, where the congresswoman called senator Mazie Hirono «bigoted» for opposing the nomination of a catholic judge with a conservative record (Gabbard has gone on to oppose his nomination).

To point out another example of just how problematic her past views may be, just look at how she referred to a newspaper approaching her for a comment when she was still a state senator. Long story short, she called them the «homosexual extremists of Ed Case». A lot of voters may hear that and think «yuck. I’m not voting for her.».

Given everything I just mentioned, It’s hard to see her making a breakthrough. Her candidacy is predicated on progressive values, but they may be hard to reconcile with her past views and some present actions. If it was my choice, I would put Gabbard below the top 10 candidates that are most likely to win the nomination. Betting markets think there’s a 20% it won’t be on of the top 10 folks, so Gabbard is sharing a not-so-big percentage with a lot of people. We’ll see how this unfolds, but it’s hard to see her winning the presidency. After all, she may just want to gain a national profile.

We are far from over though. Kirsten Gillibrand is supposed to announce her run tommorow on the Colbert report (Tuesday). Harris and Booker are both expected to make announcements before the end of January. Sanders is starting up the old campaign machine he had been saving since 2016. Other prominent Democrats like Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke and Joe Biden are reportedly very close to a decision. And some lower tier candidates like Julián Castro and the aforementioned Tulsi Gabbard have already announced their intentions and are getting out the door quick. The 2020 machine is gearing up, and you won’t hear it stop working until November of next year. I say: god bless.

To anyone who has been wondering where I was for the past couple months, I was finishing exams and enjoying the Holidays. Didn’t really feel like writing back then, but I’m back in shape.

2020 candidates ranked.

It’s been a week since I started my «The case for» series, and I’ve writen about all the major candidates and three minor ones since. On Sunday, I promised that today I would bring you my power ranking of 2020 democratic presidential contenders, a mere 15 months away from the Iowa caucuses. I’m not going to beat around the bush now, but I’m going to do a whole lot of that after the ranking itself, so there’s no shortage of information. Without further ado, here they are:

1: Joe Biden.
2: Elizabeth Warren.
3: Bernie Sanders.
4: Beto O’Rourke.
5: Kamala Harris.
6: Amy Klobuchar.
7: Cory Booker.
8: Kirsten Gillibrand.
9: Sherrod Brown.
10: Steve Bullock.

Some of you may be shaking your clenched fists at the screen in rage, wondering how I could be so stupid to put Harris in 5th or Sanders in 3rd, etc. Just hear me out, ok?

We’ll go from bottom to top, and look at each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.

10: Steve Bullock: Steve Bullock’s standing in a hypothetical 2020 primary has greatly diminished, at least in my opinion. He’s a moderate governor from the midwest who has been elected thrice to statewide office in a red-ish state, so he could have appeal with rural voters. However, what he was probably hoping for was a lesser wave by Democrats or no wave at all, so that the more moderate narrative about how the party has moved too far to the left would be more palatable among the party’s base. His best chance at staying in public life will probably come from challenging senator Steve Daines, rather than a run for president.

9: Sherrod Brown: the senator from Ohio has proven that he has appeal beyond partisanship, as he won reelection with a comfortable 6% margin while democratic candidate for governor Richard Cordray lost by 4%. He’s part of the populist-progressive wing of the democratic party, somewhere close to Beto O’Rourke, and he would have more appeal in the midwest than other candidates would. He’s also publicly mused about a 2020 campaign, so it’s not like he’s a Michelle Obama. He would be a force to be reckoned with.

8: Kirsten Gillibrand: the junior senator from New York has moved decisively to the left in recent months. She was the first member of the senate to call for abolishing ICE, she’s no longer taking corporate/PAC money, she has endorsed medicare-for-all, called for a 15$/hour minimum wage and criticized Amazon’s opening of an HQ in Queens. She would certainly be a well-funded candidate from a populous state, but she would have to explain some very moderate votes from back when she represented upstate New York.

7: Cory Booker: Booker is an eloquent, charismatic speaker, and he has also moved to the left recently, in a similar way to Kirsten Gillibrand. I’m pretty Booker skeptical for 2 reasons, though: 1- He’s not well liked among progressives for his dealings with Big Pharma, and 2- he may turn off moderates with his newfound lefty message. He could turn out to be a great candidate or a paper tiger, but we’ll just have to see.

6: Amy Klobuchar: it would be hard to imagine a worse year for a candidate like Klobuchar to really shine, because she would almost certainly be the front-runner in a year like 2016 if she had gotten the type of attention that she’s getting now. She’s eloquent, soft-spoken, comes across as truthful and she’s also more of a centrist, which means she could be a female alternative to folks who don’t want to back Biden. She could be a very good candidate, but she’s fighting for the same lane as Biden, and it’s unlikely that she’d emerge victorious from that fight. Oh, and she won reelection in a landslide.

5: Kamala Harris: you may have deducted from my piece on her a couple of days ago that I’m a little bit Harris-skeptical, and you would be correct. I don’t think she’s doing as much as she needs to do to have as good of a shot as folks on CNN think she does. She would, presumably, be a good unity candidate between black voters and the more liberal wing of the party, but none of those groups strike me as incredibly enthusiastic for her. I don’t know, maybe I’m just stupid, but I don’t see it.

4: Beto O’Rourke: I’m still not sure what to make of O’Rourke’s hypothetical campaign, or whether he would actually have a lane to run in. But I basically think there’s 2 ways this can go: either he runs a grassroots campaign that’s very energizing and convinces moderates in the general, or tries to be a unity candidate in the primaries and goes down in flames. We’ll just have to wait; we’re not even all that sure on whether he’s running or not.

3: Bernie Sanders: some people may think this is too high, some may think it’s too low, but I think that it’s about right. The senator from Vermont has proven that he can win over votes by mounting an incredibly competitive challenge to Secretary Clinton in 2016, and he’s currently second in public national polling. The only reason why he’s third and not second in my ranking is because I think Warren is more likely to convince Sanders that it’s her moment than the other way around. But if Bernie runs and Warren doesn’t, then Bernie moves up a spot, perhaps even two.

2: Elizabeth Warren: she is the darling of the left wing of the party and a political behemoth; she has made a name for herself in a matter of a couple of years and has been able to fight for both sides of the aisle occasionally. She just seems like an actually good unity candidate, which is something that’s pretty rare these days. While I’m sure a lot of progressives wouldn’t vote for her because she’s not «pure enough», most would pull the lever for her over someone like Biden in a heartbeat. And establishment dems are largely okay with her too, seemingly classifying her as «good enough».

1: Joe Biden: I’m not sure I’ve thoroughly convinced myself that Biden still deserves to be number one, and it also doesn’t feel right. But it feels less wrong, and that’s really what matters. Biden is a mainstay in democratic party politics, a familiar face, and most democrats would be perfectly fine with him. The reason why he’s so high is that he’s likely to crush anyone in the moderate lane of the primary, thus securing that part of the electorate for him. Bernie, Warren, Harris, Booker, Gillibrand: they would all have to fight for the same voters. Biden doesn’t need to do that. Oh, and he’s polling first.

I’m sure people will have their disagreements, I personally disagree with most of the picks on CNN’s list. But I hope I persuaded you on at least one of these picks, and be sure to let me know how much of a cuck I am.

I’ll be right back with you all tomorrow with a piece on the Mississippi special election.

The case for Richard Ojeda, Andrew Yang and John Delaney for president.

During the 2018 election, there was a lot of buzz around the race for West Virginia’s third congressional U.S. House district. The incumbent at the time, Evan Jenkins, was retiring to run for senate, so he left an open seat that West Virginia state senator Richard Ojeda thought he could take. It was, by any standard, a tall order; WV-03 was 37% more republican leaning than the nation as a whole, the 43rd most republican district out of 435. His rival, Carol Miller, was ostensibly just a party-line republican, so it’s not like she was Roy Moore bad. However, not everything was uphill for Ojeda. West Virginia is ancestrally democratic, and he was on the ticket with Joe Manchin, a democrat who was running for reelection statewide (and won). In the end though, it wasn’t enough for Ojeda to eke out a win. He lost by 13%, which is still a really good result for D’s. In fact, the WV-02 race -a VERY deep sleeper- ended up being closer than WV-03, democrat Talley Sergent lost by about 11% there.

Not a week had passed since his election loss, but Ojeda decided to jump into the 2020 democratic *presidential* primary. Whether he only is doing this for shits and giggles or really believes he can win remains to be seen, but it’s a bold move to be sure.

He hasn’t been included in any public polls, but I suspect he’d be polling in the Bobby Jindall zone, which is to say pathetically low. Does Ojeda really think he can win?

Probably not, but he’s going to give it a shot anyways. Here’s my thesis: Richard Ojeda, someone who borrows from the left and right wings of the democratic party, won’t be popular with a national electorate, who want someone they can absolutely be sure they can trust for president. He would be too left wing on issues like healthcare to appeal to centrists and too right wing on issues like guns to appeal to progressives. Also, he voted for President Trump.

But, let’s not fool ourselves, he’s probably just doing this so that he can run for a spot at congress again while being remembered in West Virginia. Whether that be challenging Carol Miller or Shelley Moore-Capito, only time will tell. But that’s probably Ojeda’s endgame here.

But Ojeda isn’t the first major (using the word major very loosely) candidate to enter the race. That would be Maryland U.S. Representative John Delaney, who has been running for president since July 28th. July 28th 2017, that is. He’s been running for about a year and a half, and he’s already putting up ads in Iowa, although they don’t seem to be helping much. He hasn’t been included in any Iowa public polls and, to my knowledge, hasn’t been included in any National polls either. He even gave up his House seat to focus on his run for the presidency, which he really didn’t need to do, and may very well result in political suicide. What did he expect?

I also suspect he would be polling in the Bobby Jindall zone, mostly because he’s a moderate, and moderates are seriously considering a group of candidates like Biden and Klobuchar. Delaney, presumably, isn’t in that group.

To be brutally honest for a second here, I don’t know what he expected. Did he think he was the next Donald Trump? That he’d come back from behind and shock everyone? Well, at least for now, he certainly hasn’t, and it doesn’t look very good for John.

The last minor-league candidate we’ll be looking at today is Andrew Yang, a young, leftist businessman running an anti-automatization and pro-UBI campaign. He’s about as likely to catch fire as the other two, but he’s appealing to the purest of progressives. You know the ones, those that think Elizabeth Warren isn’t liberal enough. I really don’t know what else to say about Andrew Yang other than this: if this is just a setup for a future political career then bravo, he’s certainly got the attention of the people he needs, the berniecrats. If he truly believes that he can win and seriously wants to make a run then I’d say he’s doing well so far. He’s doing what he needs to do to have a tiny chance, basically. What he really needs is some kind of major, incredible, unprecedented shift from Sanders and Warren to him, and that would presumably happen by them not running. If neither Sanders nor Warren run, then Yang might have a chance. If they do, he’s probably doomed.

To borrow a phrase from Ezra Klein, these kinds of candidates are the underpants gnomes of the presidential run, and here’s what they’re basically thinking:

Step 1: Run for president!

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Yay I won!

Ok, maybe it’s not exactly that, but you get the idea. Thay all think they are going to be the next Donald Trump. A candidate that no one saw coming and took the party by storm. However, there’s one main difference: Donald Trump started rising in polls almost inmeaditely after he made his announcement. John Delaney has been running for a year and a half. Andrew Yang has been running for a year. We still don’t know what’s going on with Ojeda but I suspect it’s not favorable to him. So, with just a tad bit of caution, I think these candidates are going to fail. Especially John Delaney. Who would make a decision like that?

So, to bring this series to a close, here are the strengths and weaknesses of minor-league candidates:

STRENGTHS:

Upset potential.
Less political baggage, as they haven’t been closely followed by the press for months.
Excluding John Delaney, they look like outsiders, which can be a major plus.

WEAKNESSES:

Literally everything else.

You might scoff at that last part, but think about it. What else do these candidates have going for them? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They are running against well-funded, often well-liked candidates. These lesser-known candidates might not be disliked by the public, just unknown. One thing is certain though: almost no other candidates have a steeper hill to climb.

This is the final entry of «The case for…», at least for now. I’ll bring you my power rankings on Monday, and I’ll also write a short piece about the Mississippi senate election on Tuesday. Hope you enjoyed this series.