I love Pete Buttigieg
You’d be forgiven for not knowing, or at least not knowing how to pronounce, Pete Buttigieg’s last name (it’s boot-uh-judge). His political experience to date includes two terms as mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and … well, that’s pretty much it.
But on Wednesday Buttigieg became the second mayor to throw his hat inthe 2020 Democratic presidential primary ring, and he might not be the last. Buttigieg’s age — he’s 37 now, and would be the youngest U.S. president ever if elected — and Midwestern background could help him stand out against a quickly crowding field of aspirants. But it’s also possible that Buttigieg, who wasn’t even included in a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll of 20 potential candidates, won’t be able to get on voters’ radars or build a base of support.
On paper, Buttigieg is impressive.
If these minor candidates were included, the debates would be a mess. You can’t have 20-odd candidates up there, so expect some sort of cutoff system to be imposed, as the Republicans did on their Gang of 16.
Not opposed to a cutoff system provided it is fair and transparent.
I really don’t get this insistence on fairness and transparency. Since when have internal politics ever been fair and transparent, and why would we insist on it in the nominating process rather than the government itself?
Here is my thinking…since you asked.
For a Democrat to beat a Republican in the electoral college we need the entire party on board and pulling in the same direction. We can’t afford another Clinton situation wherein the nominee is odious to 1/2 of the party regulars.
But the winner of the nomination will have alienated some in the party. That is unavoidable. Unavoidable but not crippling if there appears to be some procedural justice. People can accept that their candidate lost, but they can’t get over being robbed.
I understand, but in my experience it works the other way around. No matter how someone loses, a certain segment will insist it was robbery.
It’s already begun because super-delegates have not been eliminated from the process, just diminished. They can’t vote on the first ballot, but if nobody wins outright they get in the ring. The more candidates there are, the more likely nobody wins outright on delegates through the primary/caucus process, because few if any are winner-take-all. Even a respectful race could split the voters enough ways to force the super-delegates into play.
Therefore, those who lose will have been “robbed” just like last time. Ipso facto, QED.
Here is how polly-anna-ish I am.
Of the 30, two or three will establish themselves as people with legit shots and part of what will be used to assign that legitimacy will be the candidate’s willingness and ability to bring their followers along regardless of the outcome.
I linked a while ago to a Vanity Fair article laying out the thinking of the Wall Streeters. They identified five “lanes” candidates would occupy and assume that will whittle it down to five semi-finalists. If that many people collect a significant number of delegates — there’s no particular reason to think they won’t, given that a quarter of delegates in 14 states will be decided on or before Super Tuesday — it greatly increases the likelihood of the “winner” having only a plurality.
Can we seed ’em like the NCAA does? And send the Hawaiians to the South regional and the South Bend mayor out to debate in San Francisco so we see how well they play on the road in front of hostile audiences?
An NCAA field-type debate contest would certainly do better in the ratings.
Everybody beats Trump:
Democratic firm @ppppolls surveys early 2020 head-to-head contests:
Biden 53%, Trump 41%
Sanders 51%, Trump 41%
Harris 48%, Trump 41%
O’Rourke 47%, Trump 41%
Warren 48%, Trump 42%
Booker 47%, Trump 42%
Gillibrand 47%, Trump 42%
The Dem side numbers are all name rec. The Trump side numbers seem somewhat fixed.
That being the case, let’s run Charlie Sheen.