Skip to main content

Democratic Nomination Update

The chattering class is doing their best to make this early stage compelling. It's not, really. There is one fundamental question: Can progressives unite around someone with an actual chance to win the nomination/presidency? Look at this: Sanders and Warren are playing for the same voters. Biden loves this, because one compelling progressive who can convince moderates he/she can win is a problem; two or more is a gift. Full disclosure: The steady state of this blog in general will be nominally pro-Biden. As both a voter/participant and an analyst, I think Biden has the best and only shot to beat Trump.

Booker and Harris are self-styled compromise candidates between the moderate and progressive wings, rather in the Obama mold. President Obama played that role to perfection in 2008. The problem is, well, there can be only one. Mayor Buttigieg is a moderate masquerading as a progressive, also, but he's white. Ditto Beto O'Rourke. Why is he still running? In a smaller field, in a time when the base is less "woke," I think Mayor Pete could make this Obama move work. Not this year. Kamala Harris could steal the nomination from Biden theoretically, but her problem is that she isn't all that more liberal than Biden, so she has to make his age/race an issue, and she and everyone else is running out of time. If Biden wins Iowa by a significant margin, he's the nominee. That's not sexy, but it's the truth. I don't care what the Democrats have done to their delegate process; you have to look like a winner by Iowa and New Hampshire. You don't have to win, but those in front of you had better be mortally wounded. That's just the facts.

Another unsexy or impolite truth is that the race-consciousness or wokeness is being pushed by young, white progressives. The people for whom they purport to advocate are much more conservative, and Biden is counting on this. There is a straight line from Clinton to Obama to Biden in the minds and hearts of these voters. The ideal scenario for Harris or Booker is to get one-on-one with Biden, and convince them that Biden is literally worn out. Ageism will be a significant factor, if they succeed. But they have to do it carefully: the primary voters are older themselves, and Biden is close to a beloved figure. These gaffes are not hurting him. I can easily see Booker or Harris delivering "heartfelt" praise for Biden's long service to the party, and its causes, if and when Biden is in the rearview mirror. Biden's strategy is to be the giant for as long as possible. With this many candidates, all he has to do is run out the clock. If he looks inevitable after New Hampshire, there is no reason to take a flyer on anyone else.

And I just can't see Trump beating Biden in the general election. Biden is a more likable version of Trump, and he knows it suits him to play this up. If the thing turns on white voters in the upper Midwest, Biden wins easily. He's got enough pull on the Eastern seaboard as well to make Trump defend anything gained there last time.

My official call is that Trump maxes out absolutely around 220 electoral votes. If he messes up badly, he will be crushed.

Comments

Nathan said…
What do you think about Andrew Yang?
Jason said…
He seems like a sharp guy. His "freedom dividend" is a great idea, and proves that someone knows inequality in itself is bad. We need something more than stopgaps, though.

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un