How I'll Decide My Primary Candidate

Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE)

We're going to be a tad narcissistic today on the blog, and I'm going to talk about something I get asked a lot in real life, as I do tend to talk about politics with a shocking amount of frequency (as a reader of this can imagine): "who are you voting for in 2020?"  I'll be honest here, I usually either answer "undecided," "I've got a few options I'm picking between," or "Tina Smith," in a cheeky reminder that there's more to life than just the White House bid, and we should also pay attention to congressional races.

But the reality is that I don't know who I'm going to vote for, and as a result I've been pretty chill in my praise for candidates.  I've made a policy of not insulting any of the candidates (it's admittedly harder with some than others), because we're all on the same anti-Trump team (I'll be voting for whomever wins the nomination, potentially with varying levels of enthusiasm), and because I like some on certain issues while some I'm more partial to on others.  But what I wanted to paint for you today is a look at my decision-making process.  I have voted in three competitive Democratic primaries (2004, 2008, & 2016), only once for a winner (so don't look for my vote to predict the ultimate victor), and this is usually how I go about picking who I will ultimately vote for (and a peak into what I don't care about).  Essentially, it comes down to three main questions:

(Note, the pictures in this article are intentional-if I was being honest, these are the five candidates I'm leaning toward right now, though not in a particular order)

Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-IN)

1. Which candidate can get to 270 electoral votes?

I used to say "which candidate can win?" but as 2000 and 2016 taught us, the popular vote and a dollar can get you a candy bar, but not much else.  I know a lot of people are really excited about a specific candidate's issue or platform, and I think that's awesome.  From where I'm writing this, I can see my now tear-inducing copy of Stronger Together, a book that was essentially the presidential platform of Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine in 2016, a book that I've read at least a half dozen times cover-to-cover.

But ultimately platforms don't really matter to me, because I'm also aware of the reality of the 2020 election.  Even if one of the more moderate candidates, the Joe Bidens or Pete Buttigiegs, end up in the White House, if they have a D behind their name, so they're going to back most, if not all, of the major liberal legislation that goes through Congress.  There's no way in hell that President Pete Buttigieg vetoes legislation that a Democratic House & Senate send to his desk.  They're going to back largely the same judicial picks and executive actions.  There are some exceptions (Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard, for example, have divergently different foreign policies than a Biden or Amy Klobuchar), but for the most part they're all pretty much the same when it comes to policy, just not when it comes to rhetoric.  And while rhetoric can be important, it's not going to factor into me picking my candidate.

So a big part of whom I will pick is which candidate I think has the best shot at getting to 270 electoral votes.  Because I don't care if there's a gigantic, transformational leader, especially in 2020-the period more than anything else picks the leader's destiny (Lyndon Johnson was a backroom party hack and famously an asshole in real life, but he also did more for Civil Rights in the 20th Century than pretty much any other president), not the other way around.  If the Democrats hold the Senate & the House, it won't matter how brilliant of a speaker the president is-they'll get the opportunities to lead regardless.

So all I care about is who will be that man or woman who wins 270, and defeats Donald Trump, and honestly-if I think there's only person who can do that, or has a clear advantage to do that, that's who I'll vote for, with no qualms about it.  No candidate that has emerged is so disqualifying that I would look a gift horse like an easier victory in the mouth.  There are only a handful of swing states, even by most liberal definitions it would be Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, and NE-2/ME-1.  If a candidate can prove that they can win those states, he or she'll have my votes.  There's a famous adage that "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line" when it comes to their nominee...in this way, and in this way only, I vote like a Republican.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

2. Can any of the candidates help win races down-ballot?

While I care about this regardless, what I'm ultimately thinking about here are congressional races, and if we're being really honest for 2020, the Senate.  What I want to know is whether or not the candidate will be someone that people like Kendra Horn & Joe Cunningham can point to (or at least plausibly avoid) in order to get their seats back and get both houses for the Democrats.  Ultimately, a president gets the most done during the first 100 days of their first term-that's the most fruitful period of most presidencies.  I feel very strongly that we need to have meaningful, concrete legislation go through Congress, as the Trump years have taught us a lot of things, but they have mostly taught us how worthless executive actions are the second your guy is out of office.  A Democratic House and Senate are just as important as the White House, and therefore if a candidate can add a few points of enthusiasm in select seats, that's something I'm going to reward with my vote.

As I said above, the Senate is the one I'm most concerned about (while the House is important, the Democrats have good odds headed into 2020, though they could always use help or a healthier majority), and while there's still 18 months left, unless the Democrats can nab a really ace recruit in a lower-tier race coming up, it's probable we already know what six seats will decide the Senate majority: Arizona, Alabama, Iowa, North Carolina, Colorado, and Maine.  The Democrats need a net gain of three seats (plus the vice presidency) to win the Senate majority, so they'll need four of those seats in 2020.  In the coming months, as the nominees for these seats become apparent, I'll be watching to see how candidates interact with the candidates in these six races.  Do they campaign with them?  Do they underline the importance of these contests?  Do any of these nominees endorse, showing their cards of whom they want to run with?  These are things I'm going to pay attention to, because the Democrats beating Trump but leaving Mitch McConnell around afterwards is not really a win, and I'll vote for who will stop them both.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA)

3. Climate Change & Gay Rights

I'm going to be honest here-9 times out of 10 when it comes to whom I'm going to support not just for a presidential primary, but for any primary, the above two things is all I care about.  The American political system is designed so that the letter behind your name is more important than pretty much any nuances in your platform.  Even moderates like Susan Collins have become almost indistinguishable from someone like Jim Inhofe in terms of tangible voting records.  So in all likelihood, I don't actually need to get to the issues, because candidates' viewpoints on major issues in this polarized climate are so similar that it's just a matter of phrasing to differentiate each other.

That being said, I do have my own pet issues, namely climate change and gay rights, and will pay attention to people who have very specific plans for these two topics.  This is the reason why I'm intrigued by the candidacies of Jay Inslee and Kamala Harris, even though I haven't really thought about their coattails or electoral college viability (like I said, there's still plenty of time).  If all things are equal, these are the two issues I tend to grade a candidate on, and how closely they can get to where I'm headed.

Gov. Jay Inslee (D-WA)

Things I Don't Decide My Vote On

Among other things, I don't hold gaffes against a candidate, unless it threatens their general election viability-we all make mistakes, we all say things inelegantly from time-to-time.  I don't hold a lack of major policy discussions from a candidate against them if they have a record I can look for-in fact, I'm far more likely to be interested in their record than I am in what they have to say.  Joe Biden, with decades of public service, I'm going to be more lenient on rolling out his platform than a Pete Buttigieg who I know nothing about.

And I'm also aware that political beliefs change over time, something other people seem incapable of acknowledging despite all of us growing as people.  I'm not going to let a twenty-year-old vote make my decision for me if you've spent the decades since proving that you were wrong about that vote.  That doesn't feel productive, and if you think it does your standards are out-of-line with reality.

Finally, I'm not going to rule someone out because they don't agree with me on everything if they seem like a viable candidate.  There are exceptions to this rule-I didn't donate to Joe Manchin in 2018 even though he was in a tough race because of his stance on gay marriage and his vote for Brett Kavanaugh.  If I'd lived in West Virginia I would've voted for him because I can see the forest for the trees, but when there are other candidates in tough races that stood by their convictions, I'll pick them first.  But I'm not going to throw someone out because they have a slightly more liberal stance on student loans or because they're more conservative on tax policy.  No one agrees with anyone all the time unless they're looking into a mirror...and even then there will probably be an argument.  I don't need a perfect candidate-I need someone who agrees with the party line on most things who can win, and drag as many people across the finish line with him or her as possible.