Seems to me that it’s a little different than being risk adverse. I see it more as: To what extent is politics all about electing this one person president, and having him/her speak the truth (as we see it)? And to what extent is politics necessarily a chess game involving a long series of elections, many of them decided through tactics and indirection?
Of course younger people are less risk adverse. But as far back as I remember, younger people have also been far more likely to see politics (and history) in a sort of noble quest template.
The thing is, voting for who you think can win is mostly just guessing, because nobody knows who can win. Voting for who you most like and/or approve of, on the other hand, is at least somehow connected to reality.
In 6 of the 9 election cycles since they ran an incumbent in 1980, whatever “establishment dems” (whatever they are, it’s such a silly bete noire) have done, it has returned a candidate who won the popular vote for Presidency.
I agree that it’s not possible to fine tune predictions as to who would do best in this election. Polls on the subject are highly misleading. You’d need to know things like “How well would Sanders or Buttigieg or Warren turn out the black vote in November?” And “How many Sanders or Biden supporters would actually stay home if the other one gets the nomination?” And “How effective would foreign and Republican operatives be at convincing each losing constituency that the nomination process was illegitimate?” There’s a whole lot of water to go under the bridge before anyone can begin to answer those sorts of questions. Certainly, polls asking “Who is most electable” are just silly.
However, when you talk about voting for who you most like or approve of… that’s all well and fine, but it begs a lot of questions. What do I most like and approve of? An individual who is most forthright and morally pure and has a history of saying what he (and I) believe, regardless of the consequences? Or someone with the qualities that I associate with leaders I’ve seen get things done, in and out of politics? Different people have different answers to that question, but I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that there is an age correlation.
Seems like a last-ditch, desperation move. Steyer has been snagging endorsements in the Palmetto State at a rate that suggests he may not be a placeholder there.
Yep, that’s kind of surprising to me, but again suggests what a terrible campaign Biden’s run – or allowed his chief strategists to run. Nevada Democrats have a sizable service-based organized labor component to them, and capital L Labor traditionally loves them some Grampy Joe. But they also love Bernie a lot, too.
I would imagine the Klobuchar and Buttigieg campaigns are doing cartwheels right now.
And yes, you’re right. It could lead to an even worse finish than the one he was headed for. And there’s just no reason to announce this now. Is it supposed to impress South Carolina voters? I mean, just one unforced error after another, beyond the baked-in Grampy Joe gaffes.
What’s insane was all the people saying how Biden was a shoe-in last summer-ish and how this was practically a done deal. I have no idea why people take polling that early seriously.
Is this because NH generates some kind of momentum? Or because of what polling is saying? After NH has voted, 1.6% of total delegates will have been awarded. Warren currently has 4 less delegates than Bernie out of a total of 3,979 pledged delegates available. If Warren does 1% better in California than Bernie does, that would net her that disparity. It just seems weird to call the football game based on the results of the first minute.
And yet it’s often what voters and especially donors do. The primary’s all about narrative and momentum, cuz herd mentality or whatever. Throw in a few early surprises and maybe you wind up president. Do 2% worse than you were expected to or get a little too excited and scream a little and you’re working as the DNC Janitor for the next 30 years.
All the more reason for tiny relatively inconsequential states going first is dumb as hell.
The problem for Warren right now is that she has a “big campaign” infrastructure (and burn rate and overhead) but she isn’t really pulling in the fundraising totals that Buttigieg and Bernie are. And fundraising tends to hinge on campaign performance in the early primary states. Warren coming third (and getting almost zero coverage for it) in Iowa and then finishing fourth in New Hampshire makes me wonder where she puts it back together.
Maybe she goes to Nevada to compete with Sanders and runs second to him there. But in South Carolina she seems headed to another fourth place finish. And just three days after South Carolina is Super Tuesday, where she stands a great chance of being a momentum-less candidate, having to compete in states where other candidates with momentum that occupy her lane have more money and more advertising.
I can say that Steyer has been flooding the Charlotte market hard, and Bloomberg is flooding the Greensboro market just as hard. Steyer’s really well liked, even the Bernie crowd likes him. I can’t see him doing worse than 3rd in SC, though he won’t do as well in NC- Biden seems to be stronger in NC.
