Is Joe Biden's Campaign Approaching a Free Fall?

As numerous posts have indicated, I have never seen Joe Biden as the Democrats' best bet for defeating Donald Trump in November.  Indeed, as noted, he reminds me of Bob Dole who lost badly in his presidential contest.  Both men have remarkable resumes and credentials, yet lack that ability to inspire enthusiasm and excitement - something that will be needed to save America from the nightmare of a Trump second term. Bernie Sanders inspires excitement in his cult-like followers but seems to have little ability to push beyond his 25% level of support and inspires dread in the other 75% of Democrats who see his nomination as a guarantee that Trump will be reelected.  The seeming beneficiary of this state of play is Michael Bloomberg as noted in a column in the New York Times here and a piece in Politico that looks at Biden's sinking prospects and the beginning of the flight of black supporters from Biden's sinking ship.  Here are highlights from Politico:  

Moderate Democrats on Capitol Hill have begun to confront a future without Joe Biden — and are scrambling to find a centrist alternative who can topple both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

And a growing number of Capitol Hill Democrats say they’re turning to billionaire Mike Bloomberg, a former New York mayor who became a trusted ally after his personal fortune helped Democrats recapture the House in 2018.

Publicly, moderate Democrats insist there’s plenty of time until Super Tuesday, when Biden or Bloomberg could emerge as the frontrunner. But anxiety is rising on both sides of the Capitol that a Sanders ticket could cost the party not just the race for the White House but also of control of Congress — while exposing raw ideological tensions within the party ahead of November.

The soul-searching within the establishment wing of the Democratic Party comes after Sanders solidified his frontrunner status in Iowa and New Hampshire, which produced a pair of cringeworthy finishes for Biden. The former vice president did so poorly in New Hampshire that he ditched his own election night watch party to head to South Carolina, possibly giving an opening to Bloomberg, who skipped the first four contests.

“I’m feeling a momentum shift to Bloomberg right now,” said Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.), who endorsed Biden in the summer and plans to stick with him.

One of the most glaring examples of the change in tide on Capitol Hill is a trio of Bloomberg endorsements from the Congressional Black Caucus on Wednesday — a not-so-subtle show of force against Biden, who remains the favored candidate among black voters nationally.

Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), a senior member of the CBC who endorsed Bloomberg on Wednesday, declined to say whether he thinks Sanders could beat Trump and added he would fully support the eventual nominee. But Meeks — who fought Bloomberg over his stop-and-frisk policies as mayor — said the trajectory of the race is what persuaded him to weigh in now.

“There’s a number of [candidates] who are ideologically where I am. But I also had to add to that electability,” Meeks said. “And that’s a tremendous consideration we’ll have to make because you can have the best ideology but if you’re not electable, then where are we? We’ve got to win.”

When asked whether Biden’s faltering was a factor, Meeks didn’t deny it: “To say that it was zero factor would not be the truth,” he said. “It was one of many factors because you’ve got to be able to pull it together, you’ve got to make sure that one has the ability to win.”

Several other CBC members said privately that they expected other black lawmakers who previously supported Biden to soon come out for Bloomberg.

But there are some concerns that Bloomberg, who has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the race so far, remains untested heading into Super Tuesday on March 3: He hasn’t gone head-to-head at a single debate this cycle, though he is expected to qualify for Nevada next week.

Some Democrats also fear a potential drip-drip of controversies, like a 2015 audio tape that surfaced this week on which Bloomberg defends his stop-and-frisk policies in language that have prompted accusations of racism.

For many Democrats, there is a real fear about Biden’s staying power, especially if Senate Republicans make good on their threat to investigate Hunter Biden’s role at a Ukrainian gas company now that Trump’s impeachment trial is over.

Two self-described moderate Democrats did finish strong in Iowa and New Hampshire, led by former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg. But Democrats said privately they’re desperate for a candidate with the cash and name recognition to beat Trump — something they don’t know if Buttigieg or Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who finished a strong third in New Hampshire, can deliver — without exposing them to ceaseless GOP attacks on socialism.

"There's a lot of people right now on the fence," said Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), a prominent supporter of Klobuchar. Asked about Klobuchar's surge, Phillips said: "She is being elevated in more and more conversations every day. That said, so is Michael Bloomberg."

The most intense fears are among the 30 Democrats sitting in districts that Trump won in 2016, who fear they can’t compete in 2020 if Sanders becomes the nominee and spurs months of “Medicare for All” attacks from GOP groups in their districts.

Some of the most endangered incumbents, like Rep. Anthony Brindisi of New York, have acknowledged they wouldn’t be able to support Sanders if he does become the nominee, hoping at best that voters split their ticket with Trump in November.

[S]ome Senate Democrats have expressed concern about the effect Sanders could have on Democratic challengers in swing-state races. While Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said Wednesday Democrats would coalesce around whoever the nominee is, others are not so sure.

“Sen. Sanders’ argument is that his candidacy will inspire and mobilize a whole new sector of our country that doesn’t typically vote,” added Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a Biden backer.

But Coons argued that he has yet to see evidence of that based on voter turnout in Iowa, which was lower than expected. New Hampshire turnout, however, did set a new record on Tuesday. “He may make it harder rather than easier for us to take back the Senate,” Coons said.

“If Biden announced today that he was going to drop out, you’d have an avalanche of African Americans around the country going to Bloomberg,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), who endorsed Biden last September and plans to stick with him.

“It would be foolish for anyone to say what happened in Iowa and New Hampshire is not going to have an impact, it will,” Cleaver said of Biden’s performance in the past 10 days. “There’s no question Nevada is extremely important.”

Bernie's Biggest Hurdle: Senior Citizens

As a previous post looked at, many Democrats have worries about nominating a candidate who is "too old."  This is a potential problem for both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, but Sanders seemingly faces the larger hurdle, especially among older voters. As a piece in Politico points out, Sanders' description of himself as a "Democratic Socialist" turns off many older voters.  Then too, there is - at least in my view - Sanders' less than likable personality.  The Sanders campaign knows it has a problem, but to date has been unable to crack Biden's huge lead among older voters who like it or not vote in larger percentages than Millennials and voters under age 45.  Perhaps the debates will change the perception of Sanders, but his age and prickly personality may well continue to plague him regardless of the loyalty of his cult-like supporters.   Here are highlights from Politico:

Bernie Sanders, 77, has a problem with old people.

In poll after poll, he places a distant second behind former Vice President Joe Biden among the senior set, the demographic that has long had more sway over who becomes president than any other. His campaign acknowledges it's a problem and is trying — so far, unsuccessfully — to fix it.

It’s a familiar issue for the septuagenarian senator: In 2016, Sanders won more voters from young people than Hillary Clinton and President Donald Trump combined. But Clinton crushed him among older Americans at the ballot box, denying him the nomination.

The possibility of the same weakness thwarting Sanders’ second bid for the White House looms over his campaign. . . . . his aides are optimistic that his plans to expand Social Security and Medicare benefits will help.

But some of the same qualities that have made Sanders a folk hero among millennials could be repelling seniors. His embrace of democratic socialism and calls for a political revolution are likely a tougher sell to many older voters who lived through the Cold War and are generally more conservative. And in a year when Democrats just want to beat President Donald Trump, the Vermont independent is seen by some Democrats as less electable than, say, Joe Biden.

Biden has higher perceptions of electability, and it could be hard to convince people they should be voting for Bernie when they're already familiar with this other guy, and their main concern is getting Trump out of office."

In the latest Morning Consult weekly tracking poll, Sanders leads Biden by 12 points among Democratic primary voters under 30, and Biden has only a 1-point lead among voters aged 30-44. But Biden leads Sanders by 44 points among seniors, 53 percent to 9 percent.

Similarly, a Fox News poll conducted earlier this month showed Biden leading Sanders, 45 percent to 11 percent among Democratic voters older than 45. Among voters younger than that, Sanders was marginally ahead of Biden, 25 percent to 22 percent.

Iowa is a case study of how Sanders’ unpopularity with older voters could haunt him. In 2016, . . . it was his performance among older voters that prevented him from winning Iowa outright: Sanders overwhelmingly won voters under 45, but Clinton drubbed him, 69 percent to 26 percent, among those 65 and older, according to entrance polls.

Part of Sanders’ challenge is persuading elderly voters he can actually win. Larger percentages of older Democrats want a nominee who can defeat Trump — even if they disagree with most of their views — than younger ones, according to a January poll by Monmouth University.

There’s also an ideological hurdle Sanders needs to clear. Older Americans tend to have dimmer views of socialism than people in their 20s and 30s. Sanders, a democratic socialist, has taken pains to explain his ideology, at times by embracing Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Count me among those who do not believe that Sanders can beat Trump.

The Pitfalls of Assessing Candidate Electability

Poll after poll has shown that the main concerning of Democrats is picking a presidential nominee who can defeat Donald Trump.  Depending on one's ideology, who that individual might be ends up with an array of candidates all over the map. In my personal view, a candidate too far to the left - e.g., Sanders, Warren, etc. - will end up with Trump being re-elected and the nation being condemned to four more years of moral and political nightmare (more Americans self-identify as "conservative" than "liberal"). In the final analysis, who will prove to electable or not will not be known until the day after the 2020 election. A piece in Sabato's Crystal Ball looks at the issue of electablility (read the entire piece since it shows historically how off some prognostications have proven to be).  Here are excerpts:

We’re not exactly sure when the awkward word “electability” really entered the national lexicon, but the concept — voters and party bigwigs making a pre-election assessment about who is likeliest to win — is surely as old as democracy itself.

“Electability” is clearly on the minds of Democrats as they determine who gets the nod to challenge President Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee seeking a second term in the White House.

A few weeks ago, the Huffington Post’s Kevin Robillard and Amanda Terkel explored the idea of electability in the Democratic Party primary. It’s something everyone seems to care about, but few can persuasively define or determine:

The perception of which candidates stand the best chance of toppling Trump will play a major role in deciding who ultimately wins the Democratic Party’s nomination, according to polling and interviews with campaigns, operatives and rank-and-file voters across the early primary states.

But many of those perceptions and theories — Joe Biden can win back the Rust Belt! Isn’t Elizabeth Warren a bit like Hillary Clinton? Bernie Sanders can win West Virginia! — are based on flimsy evidence. And unlike the simple question of whom voters like the most, the question of electability involves evaluating what other people might like. And that’s something voters — and even political operatives — aren’t great at.

Certainly Trump’s victory is a great argument against the idea that so-called electability can be discerned in advance. For much of the campaign cycle it didn’t seem like Trump was capable of winning, but then he did. This was a vindication for Conway, obviously, but also for many conservatives who believed in the wake of John McCain and Mitt Romney’s losses to Barack Obama that the rank and file had bowed to party leaders concerned about “electability” and nominated candidates many GOP base voters didn’t like only to see them lose anyway. As Laura Reston of the New Republic put it in a 2016 piece from the late stages of the GOP primary about Ted Cruz and John Kasich arguing they were more electable than Trump, “The way rank-and-file conservatives see it, the party acceded to its most ‘electable’ candidates in the last two cycles… For many, if not most, Republicans, ‘electability’ has come to look like a way to both compromise the party’s principles and lose general elections.”
 There are some problems with this argument from conservatives. Politics is often about timing, and the political conditions in 2016 for Trump (an open-seat election coming off two terms of a Democratic president with relatively mediocre approval ratings) were better than those for McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. The former had to deal with the weight of George W. Bush’s unpopular presidency and the latter faced the unenviable task of running against an incumbent president. Obama, it now seems very fair to say, was also a superior campaigner than Hillary Clinton and had better favorability numbers.

One could argue that because of extenuating circumstances, McCain and Romney, who lost, were more “electable” than Trump, who won, but on its face it’s kind of a silly argument because of what actually happened. Yes, perhaps Romney and McCain both would have won in 2016, and Trump would have lost in both 2008 and 2012. But ultimately, how can one say for sure?

The bottom line here is that there are a lot of candidates who seem unelectable until, that is, they are actually elected.

Polls almost universally show Joe Biden running better against Donald Trump in a hypothetical 2020 matchup than his rivals for the Democratic nomination. Similar polls during 2015 after Donald Trump took the lead in the GOP primary generally showed him performing poorly against Hillary Clinton compared to other Republican contenders.

Does that mean that any GOP nominee was destined to win in 2016 against Clinton? Perhaps. But then one looks at the granular election results, and the immense improvements Trump made on recent Republican performances in the electorally vital rural areas and small cities of Big Ten Country. It is reasonable to wonder: Could Jeb Bush have done that? Or Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio? Perhaps so, but perhaps not.

It would be tempting for Democrats to look at Trump and argue that if Trump could fly in the face of conventional wisdom and run hard to the right and still win, then they could beat him by doing the same thing themselves and running to the left.

That may end up being the case, but there are a few factors Democrats should consider before coming to that conclusion. For one thing, self-identified conservatives still outnumber liberals in the general public. It may be that the general electorate would be more open to a far-right candidate than a far-left one because of the nation’s ideological orientation.

Additionally, the reality of Trump’s 2016 candidacy may be more complicated than just saying he was and is a far-right conservative.

Certainly on immigration he is. But Trump also subverted usual GOP messaging on other issues.

Logically, the most “electable” Democrat would be able to claw back some Trump voters who reside in that populist ideological portion of the electorate. We already mentioned Biden’s strength in general election polls against Trump compared to other Democrats, although we don’t think such polls are all that predictive at this point. Still, a polling edge combined with Biden’s support from the more moderate elements of the Democratic Party and his coolness to some of the more progressive policy proposals that have been discussed during the Democratic primary so far, like Medicare for all, might lead one to believe Biden is the most electable.

That said, Bernie Sanders is already going after Biden for his votes to authorize the Iraq war and in support of NAFTA. Couldn’t Trump do the same, effectively getting to the left of Biden on international issues and holding his populist support in the key heartland states as a result?

At the same time, could it also be possible that a Democrat who did emphasize racial justice issues could generate better turnout among nonwhite voters, thus improving on Clinton’s margins enough in big, diverse, and electorally important cities like Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia to overcome Trump’s huge margins in the countrysides of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania? Alternately, could such a Democratic candidate reshape the electoral map altogether by competing better in the diverse, growing Sun Belt than the whiter Midwest?

Different people will evaluate these different “electability” arguments in different ways. Our only point is to say that the uncertainty associated with each, and many other such arguments that will emerge, demonstrates how tricky assessing who is likeliest to win actually is.  

Why Millennials Should Reconsider Hillary Clinton

Both last night and throughout the day to day - and likely until the South Carolina primary results are in - the bloviating pundit class has been tearing into Hillary Clinton's campaign and, in some cases, trying to draw parallels between Hillary's collapse in 2008 and today.  On the Democrat/liberal side, many are whining that Hillary is no progressive yet ignore the frightening policies that a Republican in the White House would usher in, especially for LGBT Americans and the working poor and the beleaguered middle class.  If things are bad now, they would only be worse under a Republican president who might get to appoint two more Antonin Scalias to the U.S. Supreme Court. A piece in Huffington Post makes the case as to why Millennials may want to rethink their support for Bernie Sanders.  Here are some excerpts:

So why Clinton, then?   If the claim is that Sanders isn't radical enough, why would it make any sense to cast your vote for a candidate that is decidedly less progressive? This is perhaps the most valid and difficult question of the 2016 Democratic Primary. Here are a few of my best guesses:

1. When you're this disenchanted about politics, there's an acknowledgement that you have to play the game a little to get things done.  Since many Americans have already grieved the political process as inherently corrupt and vile, the insistence that Democrats should place less emphasis on running a politically savvy campaign and more emphasis on running a "genuine" one seems kind of silly. When, just by virtue of the fact that someone is involved in politics, you consider every candidate to be an "establishment" candidate, you might as well vote for someone with reasonable, clear, and attainable goals that chip away at our biggest barriers to progress. Clinton is by no means a radical, and is arguably not even a progressive: but, as she has been quick to point out in recent days, neither are Obama, Biden, and many others revered by this party when held to the Sanders measuring stick. And while Jonathan Chait's piece making "A Case Against Bernie Sanders" didn't do enough to give Bernie credit for the work he's done for our country and the riveting campaign he's managed to run, it makes valid points about the limited role of the presidency. The likelihood of Bernie's ability to effect revolutionary change in the areas where he shines, which are not ones in which the president typically has much sway, seems slim.

2. There are still good reasons for a radical young person to vote for a less radical candidate.  ...particularly if that young person values honesty and transparency. If there's anything I'm more skeptical of than a politician, it's a politician that claims to be unlike the rest. Part of the appeal of Hillary Clinton is that, while definitely not a radical, she doesn't claim to be either. She acknowledges that she tends toward the moderate and effective and away from the radical and divisive. I've yet to hear her backpedal when asked about campaign support from corporate donors. Hillary is not a revolutionary, but ideological transparency still has some sway with me.

3. The repercussions for many Americans in the event that we nominate Sanders and he loses are much greater for some than for others.  I do believe it's important to acknowledge that the fear that Sanders might not beat Cruz or Rubio is a very real fear, and that fear is substantiated by far more than Bernie's eccentrics or his religion (or lack thereof). It is much easier to vote for the candidate that most closely upholds your values when his likely loss in a general election wouldn't have palpable repercussions for you. Cruz is a disaster when it comes to women's issues, and Rubio has already threatened/promised to appoint a Supreme Court Justice that would work to overturn same-sex marriage. We barely have to discuss the dreadful repercussions to many Americans if Trump somehow continues the charade. Undeniable sexism in this country aside and despite Sanders's own claims that have spurred media polls limited in scope, Clinton is a far more electable candidate, and playing it safe does matter to me: because I want access to healthcare, because I want employment rights and anti-discrimination laws upheld, because I want to be able to use the bathroom without paying a fine, because I don't want my friends or their families to get deported. The consequences of losing this election are real and would have a grave effect on many. Speaking of "electability"....

4. The "socialist" problem is, in fact, a problem.  It's unfair to say that politically moderate or independent voters are opposed to a self-described socialist in office because they are afraid of the word or have misconceptions about its meaning. While that may be true for some, those voters are unlikely to vote for a Democratic nominee to begin with. It's insulting to moderate or undecided voters to assume that their opposition to socialism in the White House is a result of fear or misinformation. The real reason that many people don't want socialism in the White House is that they aren't socialists. Most Americans simply aren't: a fact that seems surprising to many in my generation. And most Americans, myself included, want a revolution that honors and amends the principles of democracy and competitive markets. Believe it or not, there are many of us who still think that great change is possible, and that that change doesn't require a revolution of political ideology. Most Americans, even those who want or are waiting for a real revolution, want a revolution that is both truly new and truly American. A self-described socialist who repeatedly points to other countries as superior models of fair and effective governance simply rubs me the wrong way, and I lean way further left than your average voter. I may have lost hope for a genuine and incorruptible candidate long ago, but I have not lost faith in American ingenuity, competitiveness, and resolve.

5. We should actively consider whether Sanders' proposals address the root of inequality in this country.  We should consider whether an economy run on socialist principles actually addresses the issues that have led to such a devastating state of inequality. Most of Sanders' proposals involve a huge expansion of federal regulation and control. This would require citizens to have a substantial amount of trust in a few men and women in the White House to fairly, effectively, and equitably regulate certain industries to acceptable standards. And when you've never been treated fairly or equitably by your government before, why should it feel comfortable to give that government a much greater degree of control? I believe in democracy and free markets because I value my right to make choices, and I value that right because my government, historically, has not. If Sanders ever got free, universal healthcare for everyone to pass, why would anyone, in the context of our history and the systemic oppression of women and people of color that was largely endorsed and perpetrated by the federal government, trust that same government to ensure that my needs are met?

If you're a young Sanders supporter, ask yourself this: have you ever been to a public health clinic? If every doctor's office is to be a federally regulated clinic, the reality is we will need substantially more healthcare workers and they will be paid substantially less. This is also true of free public higher education: teachers, most of whom barely make a living to begin with, will be paid substantially less, and I've yet to hear Sanders' solution to that inevitability--in fact, I haven't even heard the question posed. We should consider valuing choices more than we value having everything for free. I want it to be possible for everyone in this country to make choices. And if that isn't the case now, which it isn't, the problems are much more significant than amending the Affordable Care Act or lowering the costs of education. First we have to identify the problem: systemic racism and sexism. Then, we have to address it. I am not confident that making healthcare or education completely free either addresses or solves these problems.

Where I stand apart from Sanders and his supporters is with regard to what a revolution in a democracy looks like. To me, it's about fixing deep-seated ethical and ideological problems that put marginalized populations at a fixed disadvantage in a competitive economy. I want my revolution to ensure that every American citizen can take part in our democracy and make their own choices, including demanding the best healthcare and the best education, which requires a competitive market. I don't support Sanders' brand of revolution because I haven't quite given up on American potential yet. My millennial friends might call that pie-eyed and unrealistic, but bear in mind that's the same thing everyone is saying about Sanders, and about you.