Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates”

Who Among the Dems Will Win the Black Vote? Who Can Win the Black Vote?

African Americans still support Biden; but in lieu of his losses in Iowa and New Hampshire, they’re reconsidering their options.

The American political universe is focused on black voters and whether they will rally to Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, or Klobuchar in the Democratic Party’s presidential contest.

Black voters are key because, historically, they have voted overwhelmingly Democratic and will represent an increasing share of the party’s primary electorate in the weeks and months to come.

But there is real doubt and uncertainty about how they will vote and what might sway them. Very few African Americans, after all, have thus far voted, since Iowa and New Hampshire are overwhelmingly caucasian.

So it’s not as if we have real-world results by which to gauge or measure whom black voters will support.

Still, no one doubts that black voters will determine the party’s nominee. For numerical reasons alone if nothing else, they are too important a Democratic Party constituency.

Indeed, as Joe Biden put it on the night he badly lost the New Hampshire primary

The fight to end Donald Trump’s presidency is just beginning… because, up til now, we haven’t heard from the most committed constituency of the Democratic Party: the African-American community…

I want you all to think of a number: 99.9 percent—that’s the percentage of African American voters who have not yet had a chance to vote in America…

You can’t be the Democratic nominee, and you can’t win a general election as a Democrat, unless you have overwhelming support from black and brown voters… It’s just really simple… It’s a natural fact. It’s true. It’s absolutely true…

All those Democrats who won against incumbents, from Jimmy Carter to a guy named Clinton to a guy named Obama, my good friend—guess what? They all had overwhelming African American support. Without it, nobody [in the Democratic Party has] ever won [the presidency]… 

In short, to understand what has happened politically since New Hampshire, and what is to come, you have to understand the challenges and opportunities that exist for each of the candidates re: the black vote. Herewith a status update in a race that is still fluid and uncertain.

In this post, we’ll address Biden’s prospects with African American voters; and, in subsequent posts, we’ll do the same for each of the other Democratic presidential candidates.

Biden. As his aforementioned remarks indicate, and as we’ve explained here at ResCon1, Biden needs to win in South Carolina or his campaign is finished.

The good news for Biden, reports FiveThirtyEight’s Nathaniel Rakich, is that his “firewall in Southern states appears weakened but still standing.” A Feb. 13 East Carolina University poll, for instance, shows him with 28 percent of the vote in South Carolina versus 20 parent for Sanders.

Biden, moreover, “still has a strong lead (16 points over Sanders) among [the state’s] African American voters, a crucial voting bloc that has sided with the eventual nominee in every Democratic primary since 1992,” Rakich notes.

In fact, black voters account for roughly 60 percent of the Democratic Party primary electorate in South Carolina.

The bad news for Biden: he is losing ground in the Palmetto State and his rivals are gaining at his expense. “It wouldn’t take much more of a drop to put Sanders in the lead in our polling average ,” Rakich writes. “There are still two weeks until South Carolina votes, remember.”

“Interviews with two dozen South Carolina lawmakers, consultants and voters here suggests there are deep cracks in Joe Biden’s firewall state,” writes Maya King in Politico.

A February 10 Quinnipiac University national poll  she notes, “shows Biden’s support among African-Americans at 27 percent—a 22-point slip from before the Iowa caucus.”

With bad back-to-back losses in Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden has lost the air of inevitability that one surrounded his campaign; and black voters, consequently, seem to be reconsidering their support and looking at other candidates.

The bottom line: Biden is still afloat politically, but he’s taking on water at an alarming rate, and his ship may yet capsize. All hands are on deck in South Carolina, which is do-or-die politically for him. He needs a very strong showing of support from black voters.

Right now, Biden has sufficient support from African Americans to prevail in South Carolina Feb. 29; but Sanders remains a formidable political foe, and billionaire Tom Steyer is “doing an incredible job” attracting the interest of Palmetto State black voters, says the dean of the state’s Congressional delegation and House Majority Whip, Rep. Jim Clyburn.

Next up, we’ll consider the prospects of former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

Feature photo credit: Demetrius Freeman/New York Times via Redux and published by ABC News.

Bernie Wins New Hampshire and it’s Now His Nomination to Lose

Now that New Hampshire Democrats have voted, it looks like it’s gonna be Bernie, Biden or Bust—with the Bust being a contested political convention in which no candidate has a clear majority of the delegates and all bets are off.

First, Bernie. After finishing in a virtual tie in the Iowa Caucuses, Bernie won the New Hampshire primary.

Critics carp that he won a bare plurality of the vote—far less than the 60 percent he won in 2016 when facing off against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. But it is obviously more difficult to run up vote tallies in fractured field than it is in a two-person race.

What matters is that Sanders won and is the clear frontrunner now, with all of the momentum and sense of destiny that accompany a political winner. He’s also cemented his hold on the party’s progressive, left-wing base; no other candidate comes close.

Sanders, moreover, has raised a boatload of money and has strong political organizations in key states nationwide. If, as the polls suggest, he wins the Nevada Caucuses Feb. 22, he likely will go into Super Tuesday, Mar. 3, as the prohibitive favorite.

Biden didn’t just lose New Hampshire; he lost badly, finishing fifth, with a measly 8.4 percent of the vote.

Of course, he didn’t do much better in Iowa, finishing fourth there, behind Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren. Many prominent political analysts say he’s finished. You can’t lose this badly, they say, and remain politically viable.

That’s probably true; but Biden is banking on winning in South Carolina, Feb. 29, to catapult him back into the race. More than 60 percent of Democrats there are African Americans, and polls have shown that they strongly prefer Biden.

But will black voters in South Carolina and elsewhere continue to support Biden even as he decisively loses these early contests? Or will they conclude that he’s a political loser and cast their lot elsewhere?

That really is the critical question for Biden: because if he cannot win in South Carolina, then his presidential campaign is over.

Bust. Unlike the Republicans, who have winner-take-all rules for most of their primaries and caucuses, the Democrats award delegates largely on a proportional basis in accordance with a candidate’s share of the overall vote tally.

In 2016, this meant that Donald Trump could win, and often did win, all of a state’s delegates simply by winning a plurality of the vote in that state.

This is not true for the Democrats. Because they award delegates proportionately, it is much more likely that, at their convention this summer, no candidate will have a clear majority of the delegates, and they’ll have to fight it out to determine who their nominee is.

There hasn’t been a contested major party convention since 1976 if you count the Republican Party battle between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Prior to that, you have to go back to 1952 for the last truly contested convention.

“The chance of there being no pledged delegate majority—which could potentially lead to a contested convention—is high and increasing, reports Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight. “New Hampshire,” he writes, “is

good news if you’re hoping for chaos. Our forecast has the chances that no one wins a majority of pledged delegates up to 33 percent, its highest figure yet, and roughly double what it was before Iowa.

Other Candidates. There are other candidates, of course, and, theoretically, they could win the nomination; but, practically speaking, I don’t see how.

Elizabeth Warren, the Senator from Massachusetts, will soon drop out. She finished fourth in New Hampshire after finishing third in Iowa.

If Warren could not win in either Iowa or New Hampshire, then it is difficult to see where she can win—especially given that she doesn’t poll well with blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities.

This is a real problem for her campaign: because starting with Nevada and South Carolina, minorities will become an increasingly prominent part of the Democratic Party primary electorate.

Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Bloomberg have a similarly fatal political problem: a lack of support from blacks and other minorities.

Again, it’s possible that could change, but I don’t see how. As mayors of their respective cities, New York and South Bend, Bloomberg and Buttigieg alienated key black Democrats and sometimes had chilly and testy political relations with influential African American progressives.

Klobuchar does not appear to have incited opposition among blacks and other minorities, but she hasn’t exactly inspired their loyalty and commitment either. And her political problems extend well beyond this key voting demographic.

Does she, for instance, have the requisite political organization to compete head-to-head with Sanders nationwide and especially in the big and expensive states such as California, New York, Texas, and Florida? I rather doubt it, but we’ll see.

The bottom line: the media will do their best to make a race of it. Look for Klobuchar especially to be the beneficiary of glowing press coverage, and even Biden will get a second look. But right now, this is Sanders’ nomination to lose, and it is difficult to see how that changes.

Feature photo credit: the New York Times.

Democrats Botch the Iowa Caucuses and Biden Is the Biggest Loser

The Iowa Caucuses took place Mon., Feb. 3, but have not had the same catalyzing effect on the presidential race that they have had in past election cycles. That’s because, remarkably, Iowa Democrats were unable to announce an actual winner Monday evening.

In fact, only now, two days later, are we getting what appear to be final, clarifying results.

Iowa Democrats blame the delay on “inconsistencies” in the reporting of election data, and insist that the online app they developed for the caucuses was not hacked or compromised.

Maybe, but their failure to launch, so to speak, has invited understandable skepticism and snark. National Review editor Rich Lowry, for instance, wryly observed that “after years of obsession with the Russians, the Democrats somehow managed to hack their own election.”

“Cybersecurity experts,” reports the New York Times, “said that the app had not been properly tested at scale, and that it was hastily put together over the past two months…

“This is an urgent reminder of why online voting is not ready for prime time,” J. Alex Halderman, a professor of computer science at the University of Michigan, told the Times.

Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale gleefully piled on: “Democrats,” he said

are stewing in a caucus mess of their own creation with the sloppiest train wreck in history. It would be natural for people to doubt the fairness of the process. And these are the people who want to run our entire health care system?

This lack of clarity and confusion allowed all of the Democratic Party candidates—Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and and even Andrew Yang—to give what essentially were victory speeches Monday evening.

After all, if it can’t be shown that you lost, then you might as well say you won, while vowing to fight on to New Hampshire! And indeed, that’s pretty much what all of the Democratic presidential candidates did.

But, as the Times notes, the award for real chutzpah has got to go to Buttigieg:

“What a night!” he yelled to a mass of cheering supporters late Monday, declaring—with zero percent of precincts officially reporting—that “by all indications, we are going on to New Hampshire victorious.”

“Because tonight, an improbable hope became an undeniable reality.”

In truth, that reality was very much deniable…

“So we don’t know all the results,” Mr. Buttigieg said. “But we know by the time it’s all said and done, Iowa, you have shocked the nation.”

Well, that much is certainly true, albeit probably not in the way Buttigieg meant it.

As it turns out, Buttigieg wasn’t blowing smoke. He and Sanders are in a virtual tie for first place in Iowa. However, their momentum has been dampened and blunted by the delayed reporting of the results.

The Biggest Loser. What was clear Monday night, and is even clearer today, is that Biden is the big and perhaps irreparable loser in Iowa. He finished fourth, well behind Buttigieg, Sanders and Warren, and not much higher than Klobuchar. 

“His poor performance in Iowa this year reflected the ways in which Biden is bad at winning elections,” argues Tim Carney in the Washington Examiner.

He was in first or second place in all statewide polls. That makes sense, given his high name recognition. Yet despite this advantage, Biden was out-fundraised by Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg. Biden was clearly out-organized, too, as the caucuses showed.

“Biden had every advantage in Iowa,” adds Quin Hillyer. “If he couldn’t make Iowa at least close, he evinces a politically hollow campaign.”

Indeed, polls show that Biden may also lose next week’s New Hampshire primary and is poised to win only in South Carolina and Alabama. Sanders, meanwhile, appears to be the frontrunner in most other states.

That would mean Buttigieg and Warren are Sanders’ only real opponents. But despite being slick and brainy, Buttigieg’s only real accomplishment in public life has been to serve as mayor of a small city (South Bend, Indiana) that most people have never heard of, and for good reason.

Warren, meanwhile, is fading in the polls and is hardly a plausible moderate alternative to Sanders. Instead, she occupies much of the same political space (on the far left wing of the Democratic Party) as Sanders.

All of which is to say: get ready for Bernie Sanders to be the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential nominee, but this time largely in spite of Iowa, not because of it.

Feature photo credit: Google News.

Will Bernie and the Woke Progressives Lead the Democrats to Certain Defeat in November?

Are the Democrats blowing it? Are they about to hand the election to the one man they despise above all else, Donald J. Trump? That’s the fear of David Frum, who makes precisely that case in a brilliant and insightful essay in The Atlantic.

Frum, of course, is the intellectual leader of the Never Trump movement and someone who’s moved left politically in the past 15 years, ever since warning of the “axis of evil” as a speechwriter for George W. Bush in 2003. Still, he is a keen observer of the political scene and someone well worth listening to.

Frum focuses his firepower on Bernie Sanders, who continues to surge in the polls. Bernie, Frum argues, can’t win. His positions on matters of economic and foreign policy are too extreme and too easily caricatured and attacked to prevail against Trump.

Plus: he has real trouble appealing to suburban women and African Americans, “the two groups whose greater or lesser enthusiasm will make the difference for a Trump challenger in November,” Frum argues.

Equally worrisome: Bernie has something of a glass jaw. He “is a fragile candidate… [who has never] had to face serious personal scrutiny.” He and his team

“are experts in Democratic Party factional infighting. Few have dealt with people who do not play by the rules of the mainstream Democratic Party. They have always been the rule breakers, the people who got inside the other team’s decision cycle.

“They have been the Minutemen fighting the Redcoats, picking off the other side’s regulars from behind trees and fences. Now they are about to experience what happens when a militia faces off on an open field against a ruthless modern army with cluster bombs and napalm. They will be shredded and torched.”

But if Bernie is the Democrats’ weakest candidate and a surefire loser in a general election matchup against Trump, the source of his political appeal is nonetheless instructive, says Frum, and something that Dems need to understand, internalize and embrace.

Simply put, Bernie is an old-fashioned socialist who focuses on bread-and-butter economic issues—jobs, healthcare, education, student debt relief, the social-safety net, et al. Other left-wing progressives running for president—Elizabeth Warren most notably—focus more on identity politics and on being “woke” or politically correct.

Frum is too polite to explicitly say it (especially in the pages of The Atlantic, which caters to woke, upscale progressives), but identity politics, left-wing cultural grievances, and PC purity tests are a real turnoff to most ordinary, working- and middle-class voters, black and white.

In fact, I believe that Trump’s 2016 win is far more attributable to the Democrats’ increasing embrace of cultural Marxism than it is to Trump’s embrace of economic populism.

Frum rightly fears that if the Dems continue to lean forward where they are weakest, on matters of culture and identity politics, they will lose in November to Trump. Thus he implores Democrats to lay off of their obsession with woke, identity politics, and, instead, to embrace Bernie’s more universal, broad-based, populist appeal.

It’s sound political advice, but will Democrats accept it?

Frum points to the fundamental divide within the Democratic Party: between the mostly white, affluent, upscale, college-educated progressives, for whom being woke is everything; and less affluent working- and middle-class blacks, who care more about the practical bread-and-butter issues that are at the heart of the Sanders’ campaign.

The white, affluent elite dominate the political dialogue and discussion and are the Dem’s donor class. However, the less affluent middle- and working class blacks are “in many ways the true base of the Democratic Party,” Frum says. They are the voters who will make all the difference in the South Carolina primary and, on Super Tuesday, in the South and industrial Midwest.

Ironically, Sanders has had real difficulty appealing to black voters; but Frum sees evidence that this is changing. “The latest CNN poll,” he notes, “showed Sanders erasing Biden’s lead among nonwhite voters—perhaps in spite of Sanders’s indifference to identity politics, or maybe, just maybe, because of that indifference” (though Frum acknowledges that this CNN poll may be an outlier).

If the polls are correct, then Biden is Frum’s only real hope for stopping Sanders and beating Trump. Biden has held up well, but he is still 77 years old and clearly not the man or candidate he was 10 or 20 years ago. He’s lost a step, and father time can be unkind.

Yet, as Frum observes, “the left-but-not-woke idea does have power—including with many members of racial minorities.” What we don’t yet know is whether that idea has enough power to overcome the Democratic Party’s woke brigades, or whether, instead, that idea will become their latest victim. All eyes are on Iowa, New Hampshire, and especially more racially and ethnically diverse South Carolina and Nevada. Stay tuned.

Feature photo credit: Associated Press via VOA News.

Bernie’s Charmed Political Life Masks His Ideological Extremism

Bernie’s surge in Iowa and his steadfast core of support nationwide mask his extreme left-wing views. Most political reporting, after all, is focused on the competitive horserace and not on matters of substantive public policy. This has resulted in the norming or legitimization of Bernie’s far-left ideas, as voters are led to believe that the Vermont senator is just the latest in a long line of conventional Democratic presidential frontrunners.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Bernie, remember, is an avowed socialist fully committed to the redistribution of wealth, punishing and punitive rates of taxation, government control and coercion, public-sector monopolies, and American military withdrawal and retreat.

In short, Bernie is no JFK. He isn’t even Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama. How, then, did we arrive at this improbable and frightening moment where Bernie has become a bona fide presidential frontrunner who might well capture the Democratic presidential nomination and perhaps even the Presidency of the United States?

In an illuminating piece published today, National Review’s Jim Geraghty helps answer this question. Bernie, Geraghty points out, has led a charmed political life marked by incredible luck and a series of one unlikely success after another.

For example, Bernie first ran for office “in late 1971 because he volunteered and no one else did… He received one percent of the vote,” but gained valuable political experience. “In 1980, when he first ran for mayor of the town [of Burlington, Vermont, Bernie] won by 10 votes over a wildly overconfident five-term incumbent who ‘hardly bothered to campaign.’

“…In 1988,” Geraghty notes, Bernie “ran for Vermont’s open U.S. House seat and lost, in what could have been the end of his political career.” But alas, he ran again two years later in a six-way race.

The incumbent, Republican Peter Smith, had changed his mind on the so-called assault-weapons ban, infuriating gun owners and their political leaders. This led to an endorsement of the then-independent Sanders by . . . NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre. (“The gun vote brought us down,” Smith’s campaign manager later lamented.) Thus, with the help of the nation’s most powerful gun-rights group, Sanders was first elected to Congress. He’s been there ever since.

Yes, Bernie has been incredibly lucky. But as the old adage has it, you make your own luck. “Eighty percent of success is showing up,” explained Woody Allen.

Bernie has shown up, and he has competed politically, often when no one else would. Consequently, he is today knocking on the door to the Democratic presidential nomination, and he may well push the door open in Iowa Feb. 3. We’ll see.

The Trump Resemblance. In this way, Bernie bears a striking political resemblance to Donald Trump, another extraordinarily lucky politician who won (in 2016) largely just by showing up and competing politically. But like Trump, Bernie has his own peculiar ideas that run crosscurrent to the political mainstream.

We don’t hear much about these ideas because political reporting is what it is, and because of the cult of personality that surrounds “The Bern.” But make no mistake: Bernie’s radical positions are the essence of who and what he is politically. And precisely because his ideas are ideologically moored and grounded, they threaten to radically disrupt American life in ways Trump never dreamed of or even thought possible.

Trump’s peculiarities, after all, are his utter and complete self-absorption and narcissistic personality disorder. Bernie’s peculiarities, by contrast, have nothing to do with personality and everything to do with ideology, and, for that reason, are arguably far more dangerous. We will feel the burn, indeed.