It has been nearly four years since my last post, and Trump presidency has been exactly the disaster I warned about. I have more to say about the general election, but for now, let’s focus on the game at hand:
The primary season is well upon us. Well, I’m not sure if we ever finished the 2016 primary given some of the headlines these days. Regardless, after the Iowa Caucus, New Hampshire Primary, and Nevada caucus there are still seven Democratic candidates who are polling at 14% or higher in at least one state poll: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Mike Bloomberg, Amy Klobuchar, and Tom Steyer. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is still working on rolling back environmental policies, deporting immigrants, and expanding the travel ban, all while the economy seems to be improving. There is a very good chance that no matter the nominee, Trump will be reelected. So what are we to do? My goal here is not to convince anyone to support a specific candidate, but I hope that this will be an informative discussion over what I see as benefits and flaws-both politically and on policy-of each of the leading candidates.I will support and canvass for whoever the nominee is this summer and fall. Any of these people could beat Trump or lose; we cannot afford to take anything for granted.
Let’s start with Uncle Joe Biden. He has throughout most of the race been the leader in the pools. However, he has never shined in the debates, has stumbled on the trail, and has never held a commanding advantage. While he is the presumed “moderate” in the race, in the last few months, Pete Buttigieg has charmed the Silicon Valley elites while former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has stormed in as the Wall Street savior, also garnering widespread support from a legion of current liberal mayors from DC to San Francisco to Stockton. Biden has, for now, maintained a stronghold on the African American vote, particularly the older ones. Many Democrats have fond memories of him as Obama’s sidekick, though he is not nearly popular enough to coast on Obama’s coattails. He has had a long career in Democratic politics, tinged with some controversial positions, but generally well-liked by most. His support for the 90s crime bills is not looked upon favorably by the left today, but it was not a particularly controversial position even among African Americans at the time. His current opposition to legalizing marijuana may in fact be more of a vulnerability (though that appears to be
softening).
Biden’s strongest asset is his claim to electability. His relatively moderate positions, his affable personality, and yes his consistent verbal gaffes make him presentable as a regular Joe. His support among African Americans in the primary can’t hurt, but as we have seen in 2016, it is no guarantee that the desirable electorate will materialize. Biden has consistently maintained a small but significant advantage over other Democratic candidates in
general election polls (though as of 2/23, one strong Sanders poll has him doing slightly better). While Biden’s appeal to moderation and to maintaining the filibuster does not play well in most liberal circles, even most Democrats think that the nominee should
compromise with Republicans. And to all who think that Trump won against the more moderate Democrat, there is actually plenty of evidence that voters thought that Hillary Clinton was
more ideologically extreme. Biden also has a personal charm that may endear him to some of the working class voters who stayed home or turned towards Trump in 2016. He certainly can’t be accused of being boring. Biden’s moderation may itself be overrated though, considering his longtime economic advisor
Jared Bernstein is recognized as on the left-leaning side of “establishment” Democrat economists.
Biden’s campaign, however, has been littered with
gaffes, and there are many indications it is not a terribly well-run (see for example his complete
lack of Latino outreach in Nevada). Despite his near-universal name recognition, his lead in endorsements, and his relatively good standing among the wealthy Democratic elite, Biden’s fundraising has
lagged that of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and the previously unheralded mayor Pete Buttigieg. He has always had a reputation for running his mouth, but his lack of coherence both on the campaign trail and in the debates is an indication that his age may be catching up with him. One of Hillary Clinton’s most criticized moments was her inarticulate pitch on clean energy in West Virginia that came off as bragging about putting coal miners out of work. Joe Biden easily says things like that and worse every day. He let slip his support of gay marriage, an admirable position, but certainly a political risk at the time. And on policy, he does not promise much more than a modest improvement over Obama, even if he does get a Democratic Congress. In summary, Biden may be the most electable candidate on average, but his volatility is high and his appeal to a new generation is low.
Michael Bloomberg, former Republican,
2004 RNC speaker, supporter of George W Bush, and recent donor to Republican senators, seems to be an odd choice for a Democratic primary. Nevertheless, he has jumped up to
third in endorsements, including sixteen Congresspersons (and counting) and the mayors of San Francisco, San Jose, Stockton, Washington DC, Louisville, and Memphis. His previous support for stop-and-frisk in New York has not stopped him from getting significant support among African Americans; in fact, one
recent poll indicates that Bloomberg has almost single-handedly cut Biden’s support among African Americans in half. And the few national general election polls polls since he has entered the race has put him just about even with Biden in performance against Trump. While his support base is relatively small, there is at least some evidence that his supporters were even
less enthusiastic about other candidates than Sanders backers. I would like to see this borne out in a much larger sample to make any conclusions though. For what it’s worth (and I don’t think it’s necessarily worth all that much), the
betting markets also think he is by far the most likely to beat Trump.
Bloomberg is not exactly bereft of progressive bonafides. He has been a strong advocate for
climate action and gun control especially. His strong support from mayors, for better or worse, is likely due to his generous donations to
cities. His
housing policy is fairly comprehensive, though his record as mayor of New York left a city with an increase in homelessness over the years. I think that Bloomberg has some admirable positions and would be a strong actor on climate change while avoiding some of the lack of focus of some other candidates. His support for free trade is also good economically, and likely helpful for a clean energy transition. However, I am concerned by his foreign policy. Bloomberg was a long-standing proponent of the Iraq War, is a fan of militarism abroad, and is far more hawkish and supportive of Israel’s conservative government than any other Democrat. Foreign policy is an area where the president has strong influence no matter the Congressional makeup, and it is one of the areas where Bloomberg may be closer to Republicans than to most Democrats. There is no one else running who is less interested in the success of the Democratic Party than a man who as recently as 2018 was
still supporting Republican Congresspeople.
I don’t want to forget here that should he get the nomination, he will be rewarded for dumping a billion dollars on a vanity effort to get a wealthy, fiscally conservate friend-of-Wall Street Democrat in the White House. That being said, Bloomberg is absolutely better than every Republican, and if you think that his recent past would give him any opportunity to buy a Republican primary, even if Trump were not extremely popular with the party, you really do not have a grasp of American politics. You should watch more Fox News and actually pay attention to Republicans because Bloomberg’s embrace of gun control and action on climate change makes him a far better fit as a Democrat.
Moving along the “moderate” spectrum, former South Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg. He likes to emphasize the small-town midwestern mayor vibe, but the reality is that South Bend is more of a post-industrial mostly liberal college town than a rust belt swing area, more reminiscent of Pittsburgh than Wilkes-Barre. He is apt to bring up his small town credentials, but he is a Harvard grad, Rhodes Scholar, and the son of two college professors. Buttigieg began his campaign as an unknown, meaning that his every word is scrutinized more than most.
Buttigieg’s gambit towards moderates has helped him in the first two primaries, but there is reason to be wary whether it will gain him support he needs for the rest of the primary or in the general election. He is polling worse than just about every other Democrat in head-to-head polls against Trump. That said, he has fared better than most in polls of Iowa and New Hampshire, the two states where his name recognition is the highest. Despite the hatred for him online, the majority of Democrats (about 80%) who do have an impression of him think of him
positively (see page 25). His relatively poor polling nationally is likely largely a result of name recognition as well. That said, there is no guarantee that he will either significantly gain recognition or support before it's too late.
I was personally very attracted to Pete Buttigieg when I first heard from him. I really liked his message on global trade as an opportunity rather than a burden. He did a good job threading the needle between populist rhetoric against the trade deals of the past while acknowledging the benefits it has brought to consumers, and the benefits it can provide to nearly all. Unfortunately, I can’t even find the video I saw of him discussing this. He has also not talked much about trade at all on the campaign trail besides decrying Trump’s tariffs, and has not taken a position on his website. He has received a lot of criticism for backtracking on progressive positions, or on failing to take strong positions at all. The man who said Democrats should not be afraid of progressive policies because Republicans will call Democrats
crazy socialists no matter what has embraced the “moderate” lane in the primary. Perhaps good opportunistic politics, but it certainly reeks of insincerity.
I want to start with some positives. I think that Pete has done a good job balancing strong progressive rhetoric on the environment, governance structure, and institutions with an appeal to cooperation. He still has moments of clarity, such as his wholehearted embrace of
carbon taxes despite the unpopularity of new taxes in general. Pete’s climate policy
white paper, while not as detailed as Jay Inslee’s plans, is thoughtful, well cited, and embraces a multi-pronged approach to tackling climate change mitigation and adaptation, including taking on niche topics such as expansion of interstate transmission, border adjustments with trading partners, and the importance of carbon capture in the industrial sector. He has nabbed the endorsement of Varun Sivaram (a man I was lucky enough to meet), another Rhodes Scholar and former McKinsey consultant who is now the CTO of India’s largest renewable energy company at age 30. As with any plan, there is room for improvement and most of it will not pass congressional and/or judicial muster. Pete is relatively silent on nuclear energy, and as with most Democrats, is overly enthusiastic towards biofuels. Those aside, he would be well positioned to make a positive difference at the executive level, and push for an improved energy bill, and with the right congressional makeup, a comprehensive climate policy.
I am concerned about Pete’s healthcare position, both as a matter of policy and politics. He has attacked Medicare-for-All without clearly articulating a strong position in favor of universal healthcare that is not tied to employment. Economists across the spectrum have
strongly criticized employer-based healthcare and his primary argument against single-payer is “if you like your healthcare, you can keep it.” Remember who else used that rhetoric? Barack Obama in 2009-2010, prior to the Tea Party wave that swept Republicans to power partly due to his inability to keep his promise. We need healthcare reform that decouples employment from insurance and potentially locks people into undesirable or abusive jobs to maintain health benefits. Pete has also not taken up the opportunity to take the mantle of a reformist in other areas when given the opportunity. For example, he could have embraced Michael Bennet’s
impassioned criticism of the rest of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate for opposing the part of Trump’s tax bill that actually raised taxes on the rich.
My other main concern about Pete has been his embrace of rich donors and fundraising in lieu of strong on-the-ground campaigning. He has had relatively few public events, including none that I can tell in the Bay Area. His outreach to minorities, while not nonexistent, has certainly been insufficient to give him a prominent position in the primary race. He has tried to take the mantle of Obama as a charismatic young outsider, but he has not built the grassroots campaign team and he has run as a mantle of stability rather than an agent of change. His base has trended relatively white, wealthy, and older in contrast to the vibrant and youthful diverse crowds that Obama brought out. His crowd sizes have increased, but are still small compared to the draw in a Sanders or Warren rally. He also has a bit of a smug self-confidence that seems greater than the non-billionaires in the race, evidenced by his premature
victory declaration in the Iowa caucus.
I think there are legitimate electability concerns, but there is plenty of criticism (which I will not link to) of Pete from the left that veers way out of line into personal attacks on his appearance and sexuality. He is still running as more of a progressive than just about any Democrat in history, and there is absolutely no evidence that there is anything falsified about his sexuality or military service. Pete's intelligence is real, and there are many avenues he could have taken besides politics that would have guaranteed him more wealth and power. Pete's success has already been a remarkable story for a young gay man from from Indiana, and you should proudly support him if he winds up the nominee.
Buttigieg’s rise has cut into the support of another Democrat from the middle of the country. Oklahoma-born Elizabeth Warren’s path to the top of the Democratic Party has been an
unusual one. Warren was a registered Republican, though always a frequent Democratic voter (perhaps best described as a “swing” voter) up until 1996. At some points in the campaign, I have been peppered almost weekly with texts from the Warren campaign about a new “plan” she has. I would posit that a decent portion of Elizabeth’s Warren’s base is made up of people like Pete Buttigieg: highly educated and relatively young, and a mix between highly liberal and some less ideological voters.
Warren certainly has a story to tell. In her words, she is a capitalist to the bone, but she attacks the ruling class with such a vengeance that they become
unhinged at the thought of her becoming president. Warren pulls no punches in attacking Wall Street, big banks, and big corporations. She has a progressive vision for Medicare-for-All, a wealth tax, and a government-supported Green New Deal. I find the
incessant fawning over Warren’s intellectual agenda from self-described policy wonks to be misplaced at times. While Warren’s attention to detail is admirable, I do not think that all of her plans are good and I think her grasp on policy is overrated. For example, her embrace of
net metering sounds like she really knows her stuff about energy policy, but compensation for energy from rooftop solar is
more complicated than just a David versus Goliath battle between poor homeowners and evil utilities. Warren also maintains an irrational
hostility towards nuclear energy, falsely implying that nuclear waste can never be safe.
I also find major problems with Warren’s
economic patriotism, particularly her emphasis on American manufacturing. There are many products where the US simply does not have the best expertise and forcing production in America is neither good for the environment or the economy. A particularly salient example is the
exorbitant cost of American-built locomotives compared to our European and Japanese-built counterparts. If that is not enough to convince you that her economic platform is problematic, consider
this praise from chief xenophobe Tucker Carlson. These may be niche or irrelevant discussions to most voters, but I do wish that journalists would challenge her less on paying for Medicare-for-All, but increase their scrutiny on some of her other proclamations.
Despite Warren’s progressive bonafides since her first election in 2012, her embrace of regulated markets and “capitalism’ has drawn her the scorn of a rabid following from Bernie Sanders supporters. I’ve seen her being referred to as a Republican and a snake. And some of the anti-Warren vibes on the right have been just as vehement, painting her as the socialist sister of Sanders. Her appeal to the white working class, while ostensibly there, is not nearly as pronounced as it is with Sanders either as she has dedicated significantly more effort in her campaign to emphasize social issues including race and abortion. Nevertheless, her support among African Americans does not appear to be much higher than that of Buttigieg, and her support among Latinos is not particularly impressive despite Julian Castro’s endorsement. Perhaps the biggest worry with Warren is that she will have trouble expanding her voter base beyond die-hard Democrats. It is also very unlikely that many Warren supporters will refuse to back the eventual nominee if it is not her; her support base has just about the highest party loyalty. Warren has relatively high name recognition but polls lower than every Democrat other than Buttigieg in national general election polls, and isn’t particularly impressive in any state level polls either.
Warren spent much of 2019 building up a positive image after getting battered by an ill-advised and poorly executed DNA test instead of taking fault and admitting that she had very little claim to Native American history. She also underperformed most of her fellow Democrats in her 2018 Senate run, and has middling approval numbers for a well-known figure in a mostly liberal state. Warren's steady rise through much of 2019 has stalled, and her fundraising has fallen far behind that of Sanders (though it has picked up a bit after the most recent debate). Several people I follow on Twitter have already given up on Warren and are onto the man they see as the next best thing: Bernie Sanders. Pundits are writing her off after a middling performance in Iow and a relatively poor showing in New Hampshire. Her pathway to the nomination looks relatively bleak.
All that being said about Elizabeth Warren, allow me to make the case for why you should still vote for her if you are on the fence. Despite my misgivings about some of her policies and some serious questions about her electability, I have a soft spot for her campaign and may end up voting for her anyway (certainly not sure though!). Warren has been the only remaining candidate this cycle who I saw in person, at an 50,000 person event in Oakland. She has been the only candidate to raise money with zero fundraisers (though Sanders has had only a handful). She certainly has some baggage and likeability issues, but she does not have near the problems campaigning nor the trumped up scandal that Hillary Clinton had. She is a much harder campaigner and does not come across with an air of insincerity. After the chaos in the Iowa Caucus, Warren did not gripe about the process or promote conspiracy theories as other campaigns did. Instead, she gave a
rousing speech focusing on the need to defeat Donald Trump. Her campaign staff is relatively unknown, a good mark of a disciplined team. Warren and her campaign team have focused largely on policy rather than personal attack ads, though I’m sure she will not hesitate to contrast herself with Trump when the time comes.
Finally, the race is certainly not over. Three states have voted, two in caucuses and one in a still-very white state with a semi-open primary and many independents. Polls in super-Tuesday states and of other potential Warren strongholds between Virginia and Connecticut are sparse or nonexistent. In 1992, Bill Clinton’s best result in the four February elections was one second place finish, and he only won one of the first 11 contests. At the end of the day, there is really no candidate other than Warren who you can vote for without any question over either her civility or sincerity.
On the flip side of the character debate, there is Amy Klobuchar. At one point, I thought she would be the Democratic nominee. A relatively moderate, popular middle-aged woman from the midwest, her profile is a strong match to the “resistance” demographic. However, she has not really caught on (though she has gotten several newspaper endorsements). Her campaign now seems to be geared at stopping Pete Buttigieg more than anything. She may win Minnesota and did perform well in New Hampshire, but without a large national campaign organization, any high-profile endorsements, or an enthusiastic base, it will take more than a stretch of imagination to see her as the nominee. We should also take very seriously the legitimate complaints of
abuse from former staffers. I have heard these allegations confirmed from people I know and respect; this is not simply grievances of estranged former employees.
Bernie Sanders, waiting in the wings for a Biden collapse, has seemingly finally gotten his moment. Ironic that the socialist may owe his nomination and eventual presidency to a billionaire’s profligate campaign to nowhere and another billionaire who seems to be there just to give Joe Biden trouble in South Carolina. That is of course no to diminish the importance of his expansive volunteer team and his unbeatable array of small-dollar donors. Despite largely swearing off traditional fundraising, Sanders has had far more
donations, both in number and in total dollar amount, than any other candidate (putting aside Bloomberg’s vanity campaign)
If Warren’s position on trade is concerning, Sanders is downright wrong. He was one of nine Democrats. He has not really indicated that he believes trade is beneficial at all, despite its success at
alleviating global poverty. Free trade has also become wholly popular among
Democratic voters (including immigrants, minorities, and young adults). I worry that his environmental policy is far more the work of activists than of disciplined academics. His attacks on nuclear energy are even more misleading and likely to set us behind on our climate goals. His devotion to small farms (promising billions of dollars in new subsidies) is likely sincere, but
misplaced (though I will note that every candidate has an unhealthy obsession with small farmers). Then there is just the fact that he is a socialist, which does not intimidate me, but can easily hurt his cause among voters, even among many Democrats. And while every candidate will be tarred as a socialist, Sanders is the only one who proudly promotes his socialist positions.
Focusing a bit more on energy, the Sanders
Green New Deal page is unequivocal in its position on several tools in our climate mitigation toolkit:
Phase out the use of non-sustainable sources. This plan will stop the building of new nuclear power plants and find a real solution to our existing nuclear waste problem. It will also enact a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States to protect surrounding communities. We know that the toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technology’s benefit, especially in light of lessons learned from the Fukushima meltdown and the Chernobyl disaster. To get to our goal of 100 percent sustainable energy, we will not rely on any false solutions like nuclear, geoengineering, carbon capture and sequestration, or trash incinerators.
This is a dangerous position when nuclear power plants are the largest source of low-carbon electricity generation in the US, when much of the world is still building new coal power plants, and when global GHG emissions are still increasing. I am worried that Sanders will appoint economic and environmental supporters who are openly hostile to trade to important cabinet and negotiating positions. He could needlessly spar with Congress on these battles and actually delay a push towards clean energy. And he has shown little appetite for flexibility or listening to the many liberal energy policy experts who have
expressed concern. Sanders could well appoint Mark Jacobson to a high-ranking position, an “academic” who has
sued his colleagues over criticism of his research.
Matt Yglesias has written a
strong case arguing for Bernie Sanders’ electability and his policy strengths over other Democratic candidates that policy wonks can appreciate. The main selling points of a Sanders presidency are a dovish foreign policy and likely appointment of a dovish Fed Chair. I am particularly sympathetic to Sanders’ mostly (but not absolutely) anti-interventionist positions and I think he would be the least likely to get us into an ill-advised war. I also think he would be most forthright is pushing for a peace deal in Israel and would at least try (though likely unsuccessfully) to stop Congress from sending unconditional aid to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other poor countries. Sanders may have some vulnerability among older voters about his positive statements towards Castro and the Soviet Union, but he has seemingly learned his lesson and been
far from embracing the current Venezuelan strongman.
Sanders is also doing quite well in head-to-head polling against Trump, trailing only Biden and possible Bloomberg in some polls. He may not be as good of a fit for some states like Arizona or Florida, but he may be the best candidate for populist-friendly mid-western states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, the three closest states in 2016. It is certainly far from guaranteed that the Midwest will fall in Democratic hands, especially after a very close governor’s election in Wisconsin and a closer-than-expected Senate race in Michigan. Sanders is counting on a surge of support from young people (where he is by far the most popular candidate) and possibly Latinos. He is leading both demographics, and his plurality among Latinos is a marked improvement over his clear loss to Clinton in 2016. However, it is a dangerous game to play to assume that turnout will be a saving grace. Democrats indeed stormed to the House on the backs of record-high turnout in the 2018 midterms, but still lost the Senate. And the seats they won were overwhelmingly in wealthier, more suburban districts on the backs of more ideologically moderate women. Candidates endorsed by the Sanders Super-PAC did not fare well,
failing to win a single competitive seat. There is evidence in political science that relatively ideologically extreme candidates
may supercharge the opposition. Many older Democrats remember Richard Nixon’s reelection romp in 1972, and Dukakis’ significant loss to George HW Bush after eight years of Reagan and Republican presidents for 16 of 20 years.
Besides my concerns with Sanders on policy, I take major issue with
several senior staff members on his team. David Sirota has spent the last several years attacking Democrats, often grossly exaggerating and offering misleading stories. While he has not said that he did not ultimately vote for Clinton in 2016, there was certainly no enthusiasm from him towards Democrats. He also hired flamethrower Briahna Joy Gray, a proud supporter of Jill Stein. Prominent Sanders surrogates on the campaign trail include several characters who have serious issues with honesty and respectability; many did not support Clinton in 2016. Some examples include Shaun King (who is actually a complete
fraud), Nina Turner (who claimed fraud and absolutely refused to support Clinton in October 2016), and Susan Sarandon (an actress who very publicly supported Jill Stein). The Sanders team had a conspiratorial reaction to Iowa when it is far from clear that his campaign was hurt by the process or the results. They also contested the validity of the 2016 primary, which had plenty of problems, but Clinton did decisively get the most votes and have the most diverse coalition. As with every other Democrat though, Sanders and his staff will be far and away better overall than Trump or any other Republican alternative.
Last and least, Tom Steyer. He seems to just be in the race to give hell to Joe Biden in South Carolina. It certainly seems that he may have put a dent into Biden’s lead in the state based on his campaign’s targeting towards African Americans. I don’t want to dwell too much on him since he is not particularly charismatic, is wealthy but lacking Bloomberg’s wealth, and has zero experience in any elected office. His
intervention in the 2018 Florida gubernatorial primary likely cost Democrats not only governorship but possibly the senate race as well. Steyer’s experience is spending
millions on bankrolling ballot initiatives to varying degrees of success. None of his standing in national polls, performance at the debates, or his personality is particularly compelling. Most likely, he will drop out soon after South Carolina and support Sanders. There are certainly some things to admire about some of his policies, but he is not a serious enough candidate to get worked up about. He also looks a lot like another long-shot Democrat, the former Republican and now Libertarian Lincoln Chafee.
There it is. Take from this what you want, or not. Comments are appreciated, though I wrote this mostly for my own sanity. Whatever you do, please do everything you can to make sure we do not end up with another four years of Trump in 2020. Don't assume anything.
