No person on this list has had a rougher rollout to their White House bid than the junior senator from New York. Her fundraising was comparatively abysmal, particularly to the likes of her fellow senator from Vermont, which is pretty pathetic considering she literally represents Wall Street (it'd be one thing if her donor counts were down, but she only managed $3 million which she could have pulled off just running for reelection). She's struggled mightily, especially with male voters, who blame her for the resignation of Al Franken, and that might not be a mountain she's going to be able to overcome. She's still a sitting US Senator who will surely win a spot at the first debate, and I think she'd be a pretty solid counter to Trump who would appeal to swing suburban women (who will be crucial in places like Michigan & Wisconsin), but she's more on this list now based on a lack of another name candidate who deserves this spot, not because I think she has a realistic shot at the White House. (Previous Ranking: 6)
The only person to rival Gillibrand in terms of a terrible rollout, the senator from Minnesota also has struggled to gain a stronghold into this race, thanks in no small part to the disastrous stories that leaked about her Senate office headed into her announcement. Klobuchar was portrayed as "the boss from hell" and hasn't really shaken that despite being very good in most of her public appearances since then; considering some of her campaigns for the Senate, it's probable that she was going to talk about bringing a "little Minnesota nice" into the race but that became too easy to mock after the stories came out. Klobuchar's path to the nomination was always very narrow-she was going to run on electability (no person on this list, save Beto, has done as well with red voters as Klobuchar, and she'd arguably be the best option to get a "W" in the most important state on the map, Wisconsin), and use that to counter some of her more moderate platform stances. However, she's going to need a serious breakout moment at the debates, and considering the other people who need breakout moments (Gillibrand, Booker, O'Rourke) are better public speakers than Klobuchar, that might be a struggle. (Previous Ranking: 9)
People talk about how Beto O'Rourke is losing the most to Pete Buttigieg, but honestly-I think in terms of taking out competitors, no one has suffered more in the face of the smart, nice guy mayor than the guy who sort of set the mold of the smart, nice guy mayor. Cory Booker has been talking about love, hope, compassion for years, but it hasn't resonated on the campaign trail at all, to the point where Booker isn't even doing well enough that people are harping on his political weaknesses (like school vouchers), because what's the point in attacking a guy who can barely get a crowd for his kickoff announcement? Booker is higher than Klobuchar & Gillibrand because I feel like it's less a rejection of him than him simply not having a chance to prove himself (making the debates important), but it'd be easy to see Booker being a candidate who drops out before Iowa if he can't improve his fortunes. (Previous Ranking: 5)
One of the two new names on this list may surprise you, but I think that Julian Castro is one of the savviest candidates on this list, and the one that people are most underestimating. Unlike Booker, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand, Castro is not a sitting US Senator who should be able to manipulate the DC press corps to do his bidding. He's managing to do the groundwork for a political campaign as a former cabinet secretary for a department few people pay attention toward (hence how the job ended up going to Ben Carson after him). Castro is the only Latino in the race, giving him a potential advantage in high-Latino populated states like California and Nevada (both early on the primary calendar), and he has been highlighting immigration reform, which is an issue few are talking about but I suspect his aggressively progressive viewpoint on the issue might impassion the liberal base in a way that Warren or Sanders might not even go after. (Previous Ranking: N/A)
I think expectations for Beto O'Rourke were too high, and he was bound to fall. Everyone viewing him as the liberal poster boy/second coming against Ted Cruz discounted that every Democrat (and plenty of Republicans) just really hate Ted Cruz. Against Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, people with obvious appeal to the liberal base, O'Rourke was always going to suffer. That said, he demands really huge crowds, is a great speaker, had formidable fundraising numbers...about the only problem he has is the polls, and that could very easily change with debates. I honestly toyed with keeping him a bit higher but wanted to underline that he wasn't as sky-high as initially thought. That said, #6 and above I wouldn't bat an eye if you told me a year from now that they were the Democratic nominee, while past that I'd be a little bit curious. (Previous Ranking: 3)
The Democratic Party has a long history of becoming infatuated with candidates that don't fit the traditional mold of the nominee (Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, Howard Dean) and then going with a more traditional choice for the actual nomination. They also occasionally go for the guy they just like, (Carter, Obama), and it's hard to tell which Pete Buttigieg is. I think his performance at the town halls this week may indicate the former (he clearly needs to study up on his platform bonafides, as he won't be able to last the full race on his admittedly charming personality), though if he can do that I think he should be treated seriously. He's clearly resonating with voters, and if you go with the theory that Trump will be succeeded by someone who is his complete opposite, a gay, Rhodes scholar former soldier in an endearingly cute relationship is about as polar as you can get. (Previous Ranking: N/A)
Elizabeth Warren had arguably the best performance Monday night of any candidate, and is doing something that I was curious to see if she could do-move her ambitious, in-depth plans that have policy nerds giddy into sound bytes that are easily discussable as more of the American people pay attention. Warren's approvals in her home state, combined with an underwhelming win in 2018 (based on the national mood & her home state, she should have won by more), still make me leery, but she feels like she's about to have a moment, and if she isn't, she should probably be in the same league as Klobuchar & Booker since if it can't happen now it will never happen...but I think she's about to jump to the top tier. (Previous Ranking: 4)
Our former #1 moves down a couple of rungs because she didn't set the world on fire with her rollout. She still did well (fundraising was amazing, though a Californian running for president better be able to bring in cash), and I think she's done better at getting her policy initiatives across than most of these candidates, but there is a risk that she'll be drowned out by Warren & Buttigieg, as there's probably not room for three candidates against Biden & Sanders as the race closes. She'll either need to take one of them out or basically replace Biden in order to stay a viable option. Still, as the most prominent African-American in the race, her position headed into South Carolina in the early primaries still makes her a threat, since after IA/NH/SC, there will only be a few candidates left and if she's one of them, she'll have room to quickly pivot against those other two options. (Previous Ranking: 1)
Literally any other candidate would be lower, but Biden has proven shockingly resilient thanks to name recognition, and perhaps a bit more personal likability/innate strength than we've given him credit for. Biden is #2 because he's led virtually every poll, though reading the tea leaves he's running a lousy campaign, consistently putting off his announcement for president, not being able to fully counter some of the early attacks against him, and showing a sluggish operation right out of the gate. There's a very real risk that people are saying "Biden" when they state their preference but really mean "Obama," which is understandable, but a guise that Joe Biden can't keep up for long as an actual candidate, particularly if he's going to do a clumsy rollout. Still, as long as he's leading in the polls he needs to be taken seriously, though we don't know yet whether his lead is Hillary in 2016 or Jeb in 2016. (Previous Ranking: 2)
I underestimated Bernie Sanders in our last write-up, something I won't be doing again. I assumed that his supporters were picking him in 2016 mostly because for hard-left progressives, there just weren't any other options. In 2020, there are (Warren, certainly, but also Harris & Castro), but support for Sanders doesn't seem to be budging, and virtually no other candidate has been able to have a shadow negative campaigning operation that has been more advantageous than Sanders (it's either a coincidence that Beto, Biden, and now Buttigieg have all had some of their hardest hits when they were climbing the polls, or Bernie Sanders' campaign knows what it's doing). Sanders is no slam dunk (a lot of Democrats loathe him for 2016 and would vote for virtually anyone else, blaming him as much as a Jill Stein for losing that election for Hillary Clinton), but if Biden doesn't improve his operation, and we see Harris/Warren/Beto/Buttigieg all fighting it out at third, there's no reason to assume that Bernie Sanders can't take the nomination in a split contest. (Previous Ranking: 7)
No comments:
Post a Comment