WA Post: Democrats are looking for electability in all the wrong places

[pnwmom]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/04/democrats-are-looking-electability-all-wrong-places/

The top three Democratic candidates — Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders — all have serious liabilities. None of them are particularly young. Sanders, Biden and Warren are 78, 76 and 70 years old, respectively, and many Americans have expressed real discomfort with candidates older than 70. Biden has a treasure trove of baggage from his political past. Warren is far to the left on policy, and candidates who are on the political extremes tend to under-perform in general elections compared with more moderate candidates. Sanders is a self-described Democratic Socialist, and less than half of Americans said they’d vote for a well-qualified candidate from their party who was “a socialist.”

These candidates are all leading Trump in the polls for now (Biden by the largest margin), and Trump is unpopular enough that any one of them would likely start out as the favorite in November. But given the risks inherent in the Democratic poll leaders’ candidacies, if Democrats want to nominate the most electable candidate, they should keep their eyes on the second tier.

The second tier is flush with candidates who have solid electability claims. Klobuchar has posted eye-popping margins in the Midwest, the country’s key swing region. Cory Booker and Kamala D. Harris have focused on building strong ties with black voters and either could reenergize Obama voters who stayed home in 2016 (though testing the waters with the extremely unpopular idea of reparations for slavery might harm them with the broader electorate). I’ve been bearish on Beto O’Rourke since he entered the national political arena, but his almost-victory in Texas in 2018 should count for something. Some of these candidates might have undiscovered skeletons in their closet, but it’s unlikely that all of them do.

Most importantly, Klobuchar, Booker and most of the other second-tier candidates simply lack the big disadvantages that the top three carry with them. If Democrats care about electability as much as they say they do, they ought to give these candidates another look.

[abqtommy]

1. I'll reserve judgment on the validity of this op for now. Whoever the Democratic

candidate is will have the whole negative efforts of the reTHUGS et al thrown at them and how does that affect things?

[cwydro]

25. Well, the OP is a piece from WAPO.

So I guess your judgement about “validity” will be directed toward the author of the piece.

[elleng]

26. David Byler is a data analyst and political columnist focusing on elections,

polling, demographics and statistics. He joined The Washington Post in 2019.

[cwydro]

27. Thanks. Not familiar with him.

I just found the other poster’s response to be inaccurate in regards to the OP since the OP was simply posting an opinion piece.

[elleng]

29. Neither am I familiar with him,

so I thought I'd provide the info. He may be correct, of course, or not.

[cwydro]

32. Well, it's an opinion piece, so I guess his opinion is correct for him lol.

Whether or not we agree with that or not is up to us.

Sounds to me like he might have a wee bit of an ageist issue. But, maybe not.

[guillaumeb]

2. HRC received more votes than Trump.

The age issue is one that apparently only affects the Democrats. Or so the meme goes.

And many Senators are also older.

[pnwmom]

3. Biden and Sanders are both several years older than Trump, who at his election

was the oldest President ever elected.

[guillaumeb]

22. And arguably the least intelligent.

Age is only an issue if it becomes an issue.

[pnwmom]

23. And by the time it becomes an issue, it could be too late.

I'd rather vote for a nominee who has a better chance of living through at least one full term, without having a heart attack or slowly deteriorating like Ronald Reagan.

[TwilightZone]

31. Biden's life expectancy at inauguration would be 10+ years.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

Life expectancy is based on current age. "Better chance" is, of course, relative, but unless you're aware of cognitive issues (Biden's "gaffes" don't count, because they've been a long-term issues) or heart problems in Biden's recent or family medical history, your seeming insistence on their likelihood seems a bit unfounded.

Sanders, because of his recent heart issues, is, of course, another story.

[pnwmom]

33. I trust Biden to at least pick a reasonable and well-qualified VP.

But he's not my favorite aside from his age.

[StevieM]

5. She would have destroyed him in the electoral college had it not been for Comey. (eom)

[sprinkleeninow]

30. I have held this same position forever, also. n/t

[defacto7]

4. Sorry, this article gets the "meh" award.

[pnwmom]

9. Buttigieg is 2nd tier. Would you feel differently if they had listed his name? n/t

[defacto7]

10. Yes, honestly I probably would have... but

the article didn't leave him out for no reason. It seems to me that the article is manipulative in general because you don't just dismiss several by classification, repeat others multiple times and simply drop others out by osmosis. It's a rather passive agressive way to manipulate the field in ones favor. For me it would be better if the writer had just spit out a set of preferences rather than play silly mind games. However camouflaged the intent, I disagree with the points.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

6. Not buying it!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

[Me.]

7. Who Wrote THe Op-ED

can't read it all

[highplainsdem]

17. See my reply 12.

[Me.]

18. Thank You

I don't know how, given his background and biases, WaPo allowed him to have an opinion piece with that headline.

[Skittles]

8. CORRECT

[Garrett78]

11. I've said before and still say that I don't think the nominee will be either Biden or Warren.

Nor will it be Sanders, but that goes without saying.

We're still a long ways from voting.

[highplainsdem]

12. David Byler is primarily a data analyst who previously worked for the Weekly Standard, and I

don't think he fundamentally understands the appeal of the top 3 candidates among the Democratic electorate.

Yes, Klobuchar does well in Minnesota, but she doesn't seem to be attracting voters elsewhere.

Yes, Harris and Booker are working to build ties with black voters, but they still haven't cut into Biden's lead there in any significant way.

Yes, O'Rourke's victory in Texas counts for something, but like Harris and Booker and Klobuchar, he's still polling in single digits nationally.

Honestly, I think that Byler, who looks young in his photos (haven't been able to locate his age), simply wants younger candidates in the top tier. Info on him at the Post says he has a BSE from Princeton in 2014, so he's probably still in his 20s, and since he doesn't seem to like more left-leaning policies or think they can be successful in the GE, he's clearly NOT in the typical supporter demographic for any of the top 3 candidates.

The second-tier candidates are all solid candidates. But they aren't stars in the Democratic Party in the same way Biden, Warren and Sanders are.

[DrFunkenstein]

13. What Were We Thinking? QUICK, Let's Get Behind The Second Tier Candidates!

We'll never beat Trump - with his squeaky clean record, the Dems will just look like debauched pirates!

(I can't believe I wasted 10 seconds glancing through this crap)

[still_one]

28. +++

[honest.abe]

14. Not sure what this author expects to happen to change the current situation.

I suppose a big upset in Iowa or NH by one of the lower tier candidates might shake things up. Or perhaps all three of our leading 70+ candidates go down with some serious ailments or huge scandals. I dont really expect any of that to happen. I think most Dem primary voters have pretty much decided on their top two candidates and the numbers now give a pretty good clue of who will be our nominee.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. I agree...

(dodging the slings and arrows...)

Electability is not about who I think is the best candidate, but who at least half the voters in the general think is the best candidate. Especially the ones who swing the Electoral College.

The first thing to remember is that the country tends to be conservative. Not rightwing crazy conservative, but conservative to the extent they don't want their lives upset by some new ideas that make little sense to them. "Liberal" ideas like eliminating all sorts of discrimination, cleaning up the planet, better health care, improving education and such are attractive to them, but they have been turned off by past fights and failures.

So, revolution is out. Revolutionary candidates on both sides don't do well. You want a revolution, don't call it one. Did we learn nothing from Reagan and Trump who called for past glory, but governed as revolutionary fascists?

The other thing we have to worry about is that our candidate may not be running against Trump. Impeachment is great idea, but be careful what you wish for-- it could mean we are running against Romney next year. Or Kasich.

[loyalsister]

16. Youth could be an advantage in the GE

I don't think it is an accident that an appearance of youth if not an actual distinction seems to have influences the elections since 1960. Kennedy vs Nixon was an obvious example of youthful appearance. Since then, the exception was Reagan who managed to use his limited acting ability to convey an image of vibrance. Following that Clinton and Obama were the measurably younger candidates. Clinton to beat an incumbent and a solidly credible statesman, as did Obama vs McCaine then Romney.
I think youth has been a significant asset in elections and I won't overlook it as the primary continues.

[peggysue2]

19. This is just silly

Does any sport team run their second tier players for a championship game? Why not? The secret gems might be sitting on the bench rather than those experienced, proven players, the argument goes. Those veterans may suffer an age-related injury, not to mention the baggage (which includes relevant knowledge/experience) hampering their ability to score.

I sometimes feel some of these OP writers take the contrarian, nonsensical viewpoints just for attention:

Look at me, look at me. I'm so damn clever I can't help myself.

As I said, silly. And a waste of time and eyesight.

[Politicub]

21. I could see Klobuchar breaking away from the pack

I'm always impressed by her, and think her moderate policy ideas will have broad appeal in the general election. Her moderation may also play well in many of the midwest primaries.

[Hortensis]

24. That's the press filling 2-year campaigns by telling us all what to

think and worry about.

Ages of the top two aren't desirable, but we're overall very fortunate to have among them a statesman candidate who's so well known and liked, with very broad appeal and a well established record and reputation for integrity. He does not owe his position to press puffery for sure.

We're also very fortunate that he is campaigning on saving our democracy and restoring the soul of America has such broad appeal. In this time of great danger, someone really needs to do that.

We're also very fortunate to have a dynamic, exciting candidate like Elizabeth Warren who offers big ideas without the accompanying big destructive dishonesty and incompetence typical of extremists.

Both are very distinct and honorable choices we can be proud of.

And we're also fortunate that Warren is limiting the ability of the third candidate, one hopes, to repeat the devastating role of 2016.

We'd of course be much better off with any of our impressive, more liberal governors or senators as one of the top three, or other good, solid Democrats, as one of the top three. And there's still time for that to happen. The current third is extremely well funded, though, donations topping all others even as his support has plummeted.

[Joe941]

34. I think that analysis is a bit dated...

The demographics have changed quite substantially over the last few election cycles. Socialism has gained mainstream acceptance with the millennials.

[pnwmom]

36. Millenials are a small segment of voters who are less likely to older people to vote. n/t

[Joe941]

37. I understand that, but that is only one example.

I stand by my assertion that the analysis is dated.

[pnwmom]

38. Where's the evidence? I don't understand why any Democrat would want to identify

with a term associated with the Soviet Union (Soviet Socialist Republic) and the Nazis (National Socialist German Worker's Party.)

Why the need to rehabilitate that word?

The Social Democrats of the Nordic countries are capitalists, not socialists.

[Joe941]

39. Brand it how you wish but those are the policies we need.

[pnwmom]

40. I agree with the policies but I think it hurts our cause to choose a brand

with so many negative connotations for millions of voters.

[ritapria]

35. I may not Know much

Bu I have been around long enough to know the " experts" don't know their arse from their elbow …..President Trump ?. Never gonna happen … Bernie Sanders v. Hillary Clinton ….Poor Bernie ..He' s going to get crushed …..