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!

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 Harris for president.

In 2016, then attorney general Kamala Harris defeated longtime US House representative Loretta Sanchez in an election to Barbara Boxer´s senate seat. Shortly thereafter, rumors spread that the democratic establishment had chosen her as the DNC pick for president in 2020. They thought Harris could appeal to minorities enough to secure a path to 270 electoral votes, and they also thought that she could have enough appeal to both wings of the democratic party to win a primary.

Will that ultimately be how things shake out for Harris?

Well, it depends. Pretty much everything I mentioned above has to happen for President Kamala Harris to happen. If you are going to run in the primary as a progressive but also someone who has the baggage of usually being more conservative *cough cough* Kirsten Gillibrand *cough cough*, then it´s very hard to strike a balance, given liberals are always incresing their standards for purity tests.

It’s also not very rosy elsewhere for the Harris campaign when it comes to early states. If her campaign does very well, she could pull-off an Obama type win in Iowa, and go on a run after that. However, she would almost have no chance in New Hampshire. Obama lost there pretty badly and Biden, Sanders or Warren would probably go on a run there before anyone could catch them, given that they are from New England and New Hampshire tends to vote for candidates from neighboring states.

So, of the early states, Harris really needs to pull off a win in Iowa, or she’s rather doomed. But it can’t just be a squeaker, or a pretty weak win. It has to be an upset.

That’s how it worked for Obama in 2008. He took Iowa and his main rival, Hillary Clinton, came in third (John Edwards finished second). Yes, Obama lost New Hampshire, but he won most of the remaining states (especially southern states) because he had built up momentum from that Iowa win. Harris has to pull off a similar feat.

To be completely clear, I’m not saying candidates can’t come from behind in primaries and win, or that any candidate who does poorly in Iowa mandatorily has to lose, but it’s just pretty unlikely. Iowa and New Hampshire are your two big chances if you’re a candidate, and you better deliver in at least one of those states if you wanna keep your campaign alive. It’s not impossible to imagine Harris losing both Iowa and new Hampshire, but then going on to take Nevada and South Carolina by good margins. Pull off a California blowout on Super Tuesday and she’s probably the frontrunner. But I think it’s also pretty likely that she faulters in both of the early states, her momentum erodes nationally and she pulls a Marco Rubio in California.

But, let’s assume for a second that Harris does well across the map, gets a large enough number of delegates from southern states and goes on to get the nomination without a contested convention. What would a general election map for Kamala Harris look like?

Well, kind of the opposite from Biden and Sanders. She would probably do worse in the rust belt and midwest just by virtue of being a black woman and she would do better in the south and the sun belt for pretty similar reasons. She would have a built-in advantage in Florida, especially with the passing of Amendment 4 on November 6th, Georgia, and maybe Texas and Arizona, although I’m a bit less confident about that. While I also think she wouldn’t have much trouble in Minnesota, she could have a bad time in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and especially Michigan, which is getting swingier.

So, you know the drill. Strengths and weaknesses:

STRENGTHS:

Great appeal to voters of color.
Real path to the nomination through southern states.
Establishment backing.
Some progressive backing, as Harris has pivoted to the left.
Built-in advantages in states with lots of electoral votes (FL, GA, TX, AZ, more?).

WEAKNESSES:

No appeal to white working-class voters.
A tough first couple of states for the campaign that she would presumably run.
Trying to run in both lanes of the primary could prove to be difficult.
A real possibility of stagnation (more on that below).

You might be noticing a pattern here. Most candidates have more strengths than they have weaknesses, but that’s mostly because these are the ones that have the best chance to win so it’s not a very good way to look at it. Harris also has less of both because, well, I’m unsure of what kind of campaign she will run. But if you want my opinion, I think it’s more likey that we’ll be looking at the story of a paper tiger, a la Marco Rubio, rather than the story of president Harris. But, she’s in here for a reason, after all.

Also, you may have noticed the lack of an article yesterday. It happened for unrelated reasons, but I guess that Wednesday is now official Young Politics day off.

Have a happy Thanksgiving.