The World and the Election Turn it Up a Notch (Eighth Look at the 2020 Democratic Field)

I last updated my rankings of the Democratic field on September 1st. A lot has happened since then, both in the race and in the world at large. Before I get to the rankings I want to take a moment to comment on what I think will determine the outcome of the election.

The election is in 54 weeks. I estimate that the Democratic party is a slight favorite to win. If I were to put it in probabilities, I would say the Democrats have about a 55% chance of winning and the Republicans about 45%.  But we're not sure who will be the nominee of well, either party.  I think a moderate Democrat (Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg) would have about a 60% chance and a more liberal candidate (Warren, Sanders, O'Rourke) would be in a very close election that would be decided by just one or two states. (If I had to guess, Wisconsin.)

Note: I think Harris is somewhere in between these two blocs idealogically and would be a very modest favorite to win.

I.  The Policies that Will Drive the Election Next  Year.

Before getting more specific on the horse race, I want to write briefly about the substance of the election. I now believe there are five issues that will shape the course of the race over these next 54 weeks, and I want to write about each of them in order of importance.

1. The Kurds, Syria and Iraq.  I thought that Trump's re-election campaign had one really solid policy arrow in its quiver-the claim that he defeated ISIS.  Now this isn't really true. The destruction of the ISIS caliphate was largely a result of carrying out the plans made and initiated during the Obama administration. But Trump did manage to not fuck that up. In fact he accelerated it a bit by arming a lot of Kurds in Syria to fight our common enemy.  Eleven thousand of those Kurds died in that fight.  Two weeks ago, for reasons still known only to him, he gave the government of Turkey the green light to slaughter them. The carnage and loss of life will be terrible.

The beneficiaries of this plan are Russia, the Assad regime in Syria and the Erogan government in Turkey. It is likely that ISIS will make gains too, although it's hard to say what form they will take. Today our soldiers left Syria for western Iraq. They were pelted with fruit on the way out of the country. The consequences of this betrayal will be extremely negative in the long run.

It is my hope that some principled Republicans repudiate President Trump over this betrayal. But only two Republican house members have done that so far. John Shimkus (R-IL) and Francis Rooney (R-FL).  Neither man is running for re-election next year.  For now, Trump is keeping the Republican party despite this pathetic fecklessness. That might hold. But it won't if things go really bad in Syria and Iraq.

2.  Impeachment.  Last week Mick Mulvaney took to the podium in the White House and admitted that the president withheld foreign aid from Ukraine unless they conducted an investigation of the president's mostl likely electoral opponent in 2020.  In normal times, this would cause a president to resign in shame. But Donald Trump is incapable of shame and he is pretending that there was nothing wrong in this decision.  The prediction markets have been pretty firm for over a week-there is about a 70% chance that Donald Trump will be impeached by the House but only about a 20% chance that he will be removed by the senate.

Today Bill Taylor gave his deposition and apparently drew a direct line from Donald Trump to a quid pro quo that conditioned Ukraine receiving aid to defend themselves from Russia on opening an investigation into Joe Biden.  This is rank corruption. If the Republican party were not so heavily in the bag for Trump, his removal from office would be a virtual certainty.

I think the odds of Trump being impeached are more like 80%. The house is gathering a lot of evidence and at least some of the people close to the president have been cooperating. But there are only two Republican senators that have even hinted that they might consider this impeachable conduct. To remove him from office, the Democrats will need at least 20 Republican votes. (Two Democrats, might waver due to political pressure in the states they represent, Alabama and West Virginia.)

If he is impeached but not removed, he will claim complete vindication.  But it's likely that the evidence presented at trial will damage his popularity among independent voters.

If he is removed, then the evidence was so strong that nearly half of the Republican caucus could not ignore the criminality. Under those circumstances, the Republicans probably nominate Mike Pence and lose big next year. If this all comes together soon, then there could be a competitive primary between Pence and Tom Cotton and or Nikki Haley. Ted Cruz will try to run because that's his only purpose in life now. If it happens as late as next spring, the party bosses might get to pick their nominee. They will be tempted to nominate Nikki Haley, although I still believe that the Republican base is incapable of embracing the daughter of Indian immigrants as their presidential candidate.

So the Democrats probably win if Trump is removed from office. If he is merely impeached, then the effect of the process will turn on the strength of the evidence presented to the public.


3.  Health care. I have watched most of the debates while scanning Twitter. During every debate so far, liberals on Twitter have complained loudly that the moderators spend too much time talking about health care. But the reason for this disproportionate time is simple-health care is the one issue that even casual primary voters care about. It affects their bottom line, so people pay attention during those discussion.

Most of the Democratic field have similar views on Donald Trump, immigration, and the need to increase taxes on wealthy Americans. There is even a lot of agreement on most matters of foreign policy, and the field even seems to agree that foreign policy is not worth talking about much. And they all want to move towards great health insurance coverage. But the most identifiable difference is between those who want to move to universal coverage through Medicare and those who support a more incremental proposal. That is the right versus left rift in the field.

Health care is a frustrating issue for a centrist. All of the data from every advance country tells us that our system sucks. And it would be greatly improved if the federal government got more involved in controlling price and making coverage available to more people. But the problem is that a majority of voters have good-enough coverage that they are wary of making big changes to the bloated, irrational system that we have built since World War Two.

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders both want to go big here. They want to put all Americans on Medicare, effectively ending the private insurance industry and putting Uncle Sam in charge of it all. They have plenty of data to support the idea that in the long-term this will be more efficient and cheaper than the status quo.  But like any big idea, it creates problems.  These are the main three:

1. It probably can't pass. Even if the Dems take the senate with 50 or 51 seats, there will be moderates who don't want to vote for this in the caucus.
2. The courts as presently constituted will probably strike this down. Obamacare survived by the skin of its teeth. And the courts have move rightward since that decision. Neither Sanders nor Warren will acknowledge this fact, because they are running more on ideals than a pragmatic plan for how to govern the country.
3. If it were passed and somehow upheld by the courts, it would be extremely vulnerable to being gutted. The Republican party has not flinched in its mission to gut Obamacare, even popular elements of it, like expanind Medicaid coverage, have been resisted by the Republican party all across the country.  If a Medicare For All plan became law, it would still need to be funded every year. And the GOP would be dead set on choking it to death in its crib.

If the Democratic nominee runs on Medicare for all, it will be easy for the Republican candidate to scare voters into thinking that the Democrats are coming for their health care. And that's the fucked up thing about this Trojan Horse we call a health care system-people only really care about what will happen to their family. So the best we can realistically hope for are incremental changes.

Medicare for all is a political loser. That is why I think a Warren nomination will make the election too close to call.

4. The Economy.   Donald Trump raided the treasury to pay for a huge tax cut that endeared him to rich people. A lot of squishy Republicans who know he is a jerk might hold their nose and vote for him because they believe in the power of tax cuts as much as any junkie every believed in the drug that was killing them. This sounds pathological (and it is) but it describes a lot of Romney/Gary Johnson voters-the exact demographic that the Democratic nominee needs to win over.

Trump's economic record is mixed. The job market has remained strong. The tax cuts spurred some growth, but that has cooled down to 2.0 percent last quarter. Over the next year, I don't think it will get appreciably better than that. But we probably won't have a recession.

Trump's other economic stratagem has been a foolish trade war with China. The tariffs he placed on Chinese good caused retaliatory tariffs on our exports. Farmers in particular have been hurt by this. I expect Trump to find a way to end his trade war with China, call it a victory and lift all or most of the tariffs he put in place on them. China would be wise to reciprocate, and the farmers in Iowa and Ohio who have been suffering, just might be feeling better about their lot in life a year from now. This is an easy win for Trump, but he is not beyond blowing the opportunity.

5. Trump Fatigue.  Trump might escape being removed from office. The Republican party is in hock to him, and that could keep him in office. If he's still in office, he will waltz to the nomination. He is popular with a large enough swath of the public that he can make a race close, especially if the Democratic nominee runs poorly. But the plain fact is that the country and the world know that Donald Trump is an asshole.  And that counts. A lot.

Donald Trump thinks that life is a zero sum game, which is why he is obsessed with bilateral trade deficits.  This transactional  approach to life has caused him to align the United States with dictators and autocrats.  The world is seeing the price for this realignment, most acutely in Ukraine and Syria.

Ukraine is fighting off an invasion by Russia. Syria is fighting a civil war, where Russia and Turkey have enormous interest in who wins. Most Americans don't care about Ukranians or Kurds but we do care about being the good guys. At least we used to. And we ought to be rooting for the side of democratic freedom, especially where those freedoms meet the autocracies of the poorer world.  That is what Ukraine and Syria have in common. The best Democratic candidate might just be the person who can convince the people of Wisconsin, North Carolina and Arizona that they should want to be the good guys again. Convincing them that Donald Trump is a bad guy should be an easy first step.

II.  The Horse Race, Take Eight.

The candidates, in order of likelihood to be the nominee. Incredibly, only one candidate has dropped out in the past 53 days. (Bye-bye Bill de Blasio.)

A. The Top Tier (The Front-Runners)

1. Elizabeth Warren  (Up from 2)

She had a great month or so of polling and briefly overtook Joe Biden in the RCP polling average. That wave seems to have crested, perhaps in part due to her performance in the 4th debate. But the betting markets now favor her heavily, so I move her to the top spot.  But she has a lot of vulnerabilities and shouldn't get too comfortable here.


2. Joe Biden (Down from 1)

He's old. And it's showing.That's why he slipped.  He might rebound, especially if foreign affairs come to the fore, but he is not putting this race away. Not by a long shot.

3. Bernie Sanders

He's old. And he had a heart attack. But he looked lively in the debate and he got some good press out of an endorsement by Representative Ocasio-Cortez.  He has a loyal following and will probably vacuum up a lot of delegates. But his health is a concern and his shtick wears thin.

B. Tier Two (The Other Contenders)

4. Pete Buttigieg (Up from 5)

He could benefit if Bernie slips. He's done well on the stump and educated voters like him a lot. I first ranked the candidates on December 30, 2018. I ranked Mayor Pete 23rd, which was dead fucking last.  This is what I wrote at the time:  Mayor of the 4th largest city in Indiana. Like everyone who spends time in South Bend, he has an inflated sense of his own self-worth.

I was wrong. Pete is a serious and skilled politician. He deserves to be given serious consideration, even if his resume is imperfect.

5. Kamala Harris (Down from 4)

She's not just down one spot, she is down a tier. Her polling has been really rough for the past month. I still think she would be a good president but I'm not sure she can close this deal.


C. Tier Three (Those Guys)

6. Cory Booker (Up from 7)

Still not my favorite, but he has a good presence and might hang around long enough to capitalize on any chaos further up the chain.

7. Amy Klobuchar (Up from 9)

She has gotten a lot of chatter as the best moderate alternative to Biden. But this has not shown up in the polls yet and she might miss the next debate. I hope her buzz translates into improved polling numbers soon, because she's going to need a strong performance in Iowa to stay in the race.

8. Beto O'Rourke (Down from 6) and
9. Julian Castro (Down from 8)

The Texan boys have some talent but they don't seem to be of presidential timber. They both might already be thinking about a personal exit strategy but I'm not sure what either of them will do with their time after this race.

D. Tier Four (Long Shots)

10. Michael Bennet.
11. Steven Bullock

They probably would have been good VP candidates. Bullock might still be, but dropping out before Iowa might help him stay viable for that.

12. John Delaney

He should drop out and endorse Klobuchar. But he probably still has consultants willing to take his money and he must not be ready to give it up. I think he'll drop out after Iowa.

E. Tier Five (Novelty Candidates)

13. Andrew Yang

He will get votes. He will get delegates. He will birth a really annoying fringe political movement that gets out sized attention because it is mostly white and prosperous. But he will not be the nominee.

14. Tulsi Gabbard

She managed to generate some publicity this week by hopping on a report in the New York Times that inaccurately suggested that Hillary Clinton thought she was being groomed by the Russians. I can't imagine her dropping out and she might get some crossover fuck-you votes from Republicans. But she's an asshole and needs to go away.

15. Tom Steyer (Up from 17)
16. Tim Ryan (Down from 15)
17. Marianne Williamson (Up from 20)
18. Joe Sestak  (Down from 16)
19. Wayne Messam

The funnest fact of 2020 so far: Wayne Messam raised exactly $5 during the 3rd quarter of this year. That is one-half of a roll of quarters.


III.  The Power Rankings, Take Eight.
Here is how I rank the candidates just by my personal preferences.

1.  Klobuchar
2.  Harris
3.  Buttigieg (Up from nine)
4.  Michael Bennet (Up from 6)
5.  Steve Bullock (Up from 7)
6.  Elizabeth Warren (Down from 3)
7.  Beto O'Rourke (Down from 4)
8.  Julian Castro (Down from 5)
9.  Joe Biden
10. Cory Booker (Up from 11)
11. John Delaney (Down from 10)
12. Joe Sestak (Up from 13)
13. Tim Ryan (Down from 12)
14. Bernie Sanders
15. Wayne Messam
16.  Andrew Yang
17.  Tom Steyer
18.   Marianne Williamson
19.   Tulsi Gabbard

4th Democratic Debate Grades and New Rankings

There were profound events in the world this week. The President of the United States left an ally to be slaughtered by Turkish militias. He did this because his lazy, weak and corrupt.  Tonight's debate should have focused on that, but it did not.

That said, this debate was more substantive than the earlier debates. The biggest headline is that Warren took a lot of flak, as befits her status as the new front-runner. As for how she did, the news is mixed. Overall she did not do great. But there might be a silver lining in this-the folks who did best at attacking her, are pretty far back in the polls. 

As with the previous debates, I'll give a tactical and a strategic grade for each candidate.  And in  day or two I will update my rankings of the candidates.

WINNERS:

1. Amy Klobuchar   Tactical: A  Strategic: A

If you read this blog regularly-and there are at least six of you who do, then you know Klobuchar is my preferred candidate. Tonight she was the only person who mentioned Trump's betrayal of the Kurds  in the first hour of the debate. She also did a good job of pointing out the weaknesses of Warren's policies and campaign.  She needed a big night and she really should get a bounce from it. I don't think it will be enough to get her near the top but I hope it's enough to get her in the next debate.

2. Pete Buttigieg  Tactical:  A-  Strategic A

Solid on all points. An adult and a skilled debater. I am beginning to think he might be ready for this job after all. (And I never thought I would say that.)

3. Bernie Sanders  Tactical:  A- Strategic:  A-

Bernie had one important job tonight-look healthy.  He did that. And he wasn't bad on the substance, given how played out his shtick is.  No harm done to him tonight and he might rebound from a recent dip.

4. Cory Booker   Tactical:  B+   Strategic:  A-

Cory usually plays the voice of reason and he did again tonight. But he never seems to get traction after his strong performances, in part because he usually says something annoying. Tonight he brought up his veganism three times.  That is four times too many.

5  (TIE) Julian Castro and Beto O'Rourke   Tactical: B+  Strategic:  B+

They were fine. But I don't see either of them rocketing up the ranks anytime soon.

7. Andrew Yang  Tactical: B  Strategic: B

He's not a serious candidate, so I don't grade him based on whether he's going to be president. But he made some good points and probably will raise some more money for his future podcast and multi-level marketing empire.

8.  Joe Biden    Tactical: B  Strategic:  C

Joe avoided any huge gaffes, which counts for something but it's impossible to watch him speak for even one minute without thinking about his age.  He gets visibly confused in ways that make me uncomfortable.  I don't know if there is a solution to that.

9. Elizabeth Warren   Tactical:  C+  Strategic:  B-

She looked evasive and even duplicitous in her half-assed explanation/defense of Medicare for All plan. 

10. Kamala Harris  Tactical: B-  Strategic:  C-

She went for some very easy applause line on reproductive choice by saying things that literally everyone on the stage agrees with. But then she really went hard at Elizabeth Warren on the silliest issue possible-banning Donald Trump from Twitter.  That diminishes her already fading candidacy.

11. Tom Steyer:  Tactical:   C  Strategic:  C

The moderators were correct to give him the bare minimum of attention and he did his best to make them not regret that decision.  Some of his answers were delivered competently. He's obviously been rehearsing for this moment. He had a neat thing of starting every answer with a compliment of someone other candidate.  But this is the saddest middle age crisis I've ever been forced to watch on television.  If he wanted to do good with his fortune, he has a ton of options.  This verkhakta campaign ain't one. 

12. Tulsi Gabbard  Tactical:  Incomplete  Strategic: Incomplete

She is loathsome. But I can't grade her fairly because I'm not sure what her objective is. Maybe she wants to be the presidential nominee of the Democratic party. Maybe she wants to build some kind of political movement based on.....God knows what. But she did nothing to dispel rumors/conspiracy thinking that she intends to run as an independent or third party candidate.

I want to state that I was and am firmly opposed to our military invasion of Iraq. But for her to act like Trump's betrayal of the Kurds was a price worth paying for bringing 1,000 soldiers home* is despicable.

*They are not coming home yet. They are going to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, because the Saudi government is renting them from a man who thinks our military is a revenue center and our soldiers are Hessians.