I think that in his latest Washington Post column, E. J. Dionne, like most other media pundits, is characterizing the contest for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president incorrectly:
The campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination is radically unsettled because the party’s primary voters are in a deeply uncertain mood. They try on candidates, find them wanting and move on to someone else.
Further confusing the contest is the success of two candidates, former vice president Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), in maintaining bases of support large enough to block the way of other contenders.
The loyalty of Biden’s enthusiasts among older voters, particularly African Americans and more moderate whites, has made it very difficult for Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), among others, to break through. Both the Booker and Harris campaigns now seem in jeopardy.
Let’s stop right there and consider three things: the party’s structure, the actual situation, and the factor that makes the 2020 election very much like the 2016 election. Let’s start with structure.
Today the Democratic Party has two major wings, each with about half of Democratic voters: the progressive wing and a more moderate wing. With Democrats comprising about 30% of voters and most progressives being Democrats, that means that 15% of voters are progressives. They’re the wrong half. A progressive presidential candidate won’t be able to woo more moderate voters without discouraging even more progressive voters.
Now let’s talk about the actual situation. Joe Biden is the frontrunner. There is a second tier of candidates presently consisting of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg. There is a third tier of candidates with support in single digits. Biden’s support has varied from 20% to 40%. Sanders and Warren supporters combined just about equal Biden’s support. I am at a loss to explain why Sanders and Warren are being given as much attention in the media as they are. I can only speculate that they represent the preference of the media.
What makes the 2020 election resemble the 2016 election are that a) every one of the likely nominees is seriously flawed and b) they will be running against Donald Trump.
I think it’s obvious that those factors in aggregate are what caused Michael Bloomberg to throw his hat in the ring. And progressives are the dog in the manger. They won’t take Biden for an answer. That is probably why Barack Obama has been making noises lately, somewhat unusual in former presidents.
The Democrats are going to get the candidate the media and the party leaders want, good and hard. And then the End of Days campaign will begin, with threats of concentration camps/enslavement for all gender and racial minorities, Ukraine, Russia, Turkey (yes, Turkeygate is coming!) and White Supremacist Patriarchy all prominently featured if Trump is reelected. I may be even underestimating the insane batshit craziness that’s going to be displayed in the run-up to November 2020.
“I am at a loss to explain why Sanders and Warren are being given as much attention in the media as they are.”
The same reason that football announcers are trying to keep you interested when it is the 4th quarter and one team is ahead by 35 points. They have to try to make it interesting so you pay attention and they can sell more ads. Donald Trump dominated the news when he ran. You think that meant they preferred him? (Actually, on some level I suspect the marketing departments probably did.)
Steve
Barak Obama has been quoted as saying, “Vote for anyone, as long as they are a democrat.â€
I guess that is the current partisan way of choosing who will lead this country. My ABH reasoning in the 2016 election, was certainly the basis for my vote. However, under more ideal circumstances, I think the quality and substance of a candidateâ€s policies would be a stronger foundation for supporting one’s voting preferences.
Wouldn’t the better comparison be 2012? In August Michelle Bachmann lead the polls. In October Herman Cain. Both whackos. It still seems a bit early to call anything anywhere near definitive.
Steve
Biden has led in the polls since he announced. I think he tied with Elizabeth Warren for a few days at one point.
The jockeying has been for second place not first. IMO that’s a lot different from 2012.
The Iowa Caucus is two months away; the New Hampshire primary a week after that. Two weeks later are the Nevada Caucus and South Carolina primary. It’s starting to get late in the game.
Heh.
Reverend Barber and Mayor Pete. (I guess the mayor doesn’t really want the job.):
Mayor Pete: “Yeah, I mean the uncomfortable reality is that undocumented folks are in many ways, like Social Security, subsidizing everybody else.”
And….
“………..shouldn’t we have some conversation whenever people say, we call people ‘illegal aliens’ and all these things that are not human, are certainly not Christian,†Barber continued. “Why can’t we just own in America that some of the people that are trying to come from Mexico here are coming back to land we stole, and the reason we took the land is because people wanted to keep their slaves?”
Buttigieg nodded in agreement as Barber made his remarks.
You go, Petey. Sounds like a dead banged winning issue, son. You go.
That’s both an ahistorical account of the settlement of the West and an anti-Lockean one. On what basis did the residents have ownership of the land?
I think you’ve described the problem well. I’m a swing voter who would prefer to vote for an alternative to Trump. But I’m actually contemplating not voting this year, especially since it appears the Libertarians are likely to nominate a complete kook.
“Why can’t we just own in America that some of the people that are trying to come from Mexico here are coming back to land we stole, and the reason we took the land is because people wanted to keep their slaves?â€
We can’t because of haters, and “people” who can’t recognize and disown their privilege. OK Boomer?
That doesn’t explain why the media have been covering Sanders and Warren rather than Klobuchar, Hickenlooper, Bullock, et al.
Most in the media consider themselves more liberal-minded than “moderateâ€-minded, hence covering candidates who fit in with their own thinking like Warren and Bernie. Does unbiased or factually based news even exist anymore?
@Jan:
No, I think not.
“That doesn’t explain why the media have been covering Sanders and Warren rather than Klobuchar, Hickenlooper, Bullock, et al.”
Because they have been polling higher and it is easier to keep interest in the game if the lead is only 14 points in the 4th quarter. Also, Bernie in particular has a hard core group of followers. Again, something I just dont understand. I dont think any politician is worth going gaga over, but Bernie fans and Trump fans disagree.
Steve
“Because they have been polling higher and it is easier to keep interest in the game if the lead is only 14 points in the 4th quarter.”
I don’t think the data supports this. And if it were true that the media coverage mirroring polling then the entire edifice is a self-licking ice cream cone.
I think the fact is that the media wrote off lesser-known candidates from the beginning probably thanks to pundit opinion. This is why many candidates have tried to say wild things in hopes of getting some press coverage.
To me, the whole thing is obviously a ruse and not a real or fair competition. Even the “debates” are little more that really bad reality TV.
But there’s only so much the media can do. Joe Biden gets the lion’s share of coverage, yet his numbers are still underwhelming.
https://towardsdatascience.com/media-bias-in-the-democratic-primary-66ffb48084db