Why is Michael Bennet Still Running for President?

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)

We are less than two weeks out from the Iowa caucuses, and questions abound.  Is Bernie Sanders resurgence real enough to get him the nomination he missed four years ago?  Is Amy Klobuchar going to sneak in at the last minute in Iowa?  Is Joe Biden about to get a surprise victory in the state and sort of "John Kerry" himself to the nomination.  By my count there are five viable candidates still left for the presidential nomination (Klobuchar, Sanders, Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg), though their chances vary greatly.  One of these people will end up facing off against Donald Trump in what promises to be one of the bloodiest and most consequential elections in the history of the Republic, and if they emerge victorious, will become the 46th President of the United States.

However, these five people are not the only individuals running for president right now nor are they the only ones to make a play for the office in the past year, as I'm sure you're well aware.  I wanted to talk about that today, as there seems to be a bit of a "jump in logic" on Twitter in the past few weeks.  We've seen in the past two months Kamala Harris, Julian Castro, and Cory Booker all get out of the race, and this is admittedly not a great look for the Democratic Party that three people-of-color all dropped off so close to each other while five white candidates stand atop the mount, but what I've noticed is "Cory Booker got outlasted by two billionaires" sort of glib comments in the past couple of weeks, and while that's technically true, that's not really what happened.

The billionaires that they are referring toward are Michael Bloomberg & Tom Steyer, and we might as well add political novices Andrew Yang & Marianne Williamson in this conversation, not to mention Tulsi Gabbard.  With the exception of Williamson, all five of these candidates are still in this race, and all five outlasted more reputable candidates.  But Booker, Castro, and Harris dropped out not because they were losing to these individuals, but because they were losing to Klobuchar, Warren, et al...and because they have political futures.

Andrew Yang may get a great book deal out of his run for the White House, but he's not going to be president, and it's probable he's never going to hold major office.  Tom Steyer likely could make a play in California, but the liberal electorate in that state is going to make it difficult for a billionaire to come into the election and buy a seat as governor or senator (though not impossible-see JB Pritzker).  Mike Bloomberg is nearing 80 and couldn't be elected NYC Mayor, much less senator or governor from New York anymore.  Gabbard poisoned the well so much she's killed her career in Hawaii, and is probably running for a more nefarious purpose (like an eventual third party bid).  And Williamson, well, will probably also get a book deal.  None of these people, though, are serious figures in modern politics.  None of them have a chance of being president or vice president in the future, or perhaps a major shaper of policy in Congress or as governor.

That's not the case for Castro, Harris, and Booker.  Harris & Booker are sitting senators, who could make a play for their party's leadership someday, and Castro is a high-profile Democrat in a state that is increasingly friendly to Democrats.  These are people with futures, and it makes sense for them to get out of the Democratic primaries before they have to have the humiliating blackmark of getting less delegates of someone like Williamson.  This is also why Kirsten Gillibrand, John Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee, Eric Swalwell, Seth Moulton, Tim Ryan, Bill de Blasio, and Steve Bullock got out of the race-who wants to humiliate themselves in that way when they have reputable, important jobs already (or in Hickenlooper's case, are about to have such occupations)?  They've all burned some political capitol, but they still have elevated profiles and might run in the future (either for their current high office or perhaps higher).  Unlike Williamson or Yang, they have something to lose.

Which brings us to the reason I wanted to write this article: Michael Bennet.  Of all of the Democrats you've heard of running for POTUS this year, you have the five that could win (Klobuchar/Sanders/Warren/Biden/Buttigieg), the two billionaires (Bloomberg/Steyer), the former office-holders who don't seem to know what they want (Deval Patrick/John Delaney), and Gabbard off spreading conspiracy theories.  That leaves just one person who seems like a Booker or Gillibrand or Harris, someone who definitely is an important figure in politics, and who has a proper future in the party-Michael Bennet.

Bennet hasn't qualified for a debate in months.  His poll numbers are anemic.  If he's running for a specific issue (like Inslee to bring climate change into conversation or Yang with a universal income), he's not doing a good job of distinguishing himself with it.  There is, by all accounts, virtually no reason for this man to be running for president.  It's not like people aren't aware of him if he wants to join their cabinet-he's a sitting US Senator, if a Democrat wins the White House, he'll be able to demand a sit-down with them to discuss cabinet options without having to hoard a few delegates to get on their radar.  He's proven that he's not a dynamic politician, but he's also in a relatively safe seat and he's only 55-he has decades to accumulate power, seniority, and his own chairmanship in the Senate, or could make a run for leadership if he wanted.  It's going to look ridiculous if he gets less votes than Booker or Williamson (who are definitely on ballots right now) and is a candidate still in the race.

I don't have a great answer here-Bennet has not provided a logical reason why someone with options and a bright political future is still running a doomed bid for the Oval Office.  What I can tell you is that this will be a huge embarrassment for Bennet.  Harris, Booker, Gillibrand...these are all people who have damaged their chances of ever being president after abysmal showings this year.  Imagine what would have happened if "Uncommitted" beat them on the ballot.  Something for Michael Bennet to think about, and for his sake, he better do so fast.