Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand: Two senators who rose to prominence in the Trump era. Two moderate-to-conservative Democrats who have moved towards the left wing in the last five to ten years. And if the pundits were to be believed, two top-tier contenders in the 2020 Democratic primary.
Introduction
The obvious question in the case of both Sens. Harris and Gillibrand is, why did they do so poorly, at least compared to expectations? I'll try to answer that during this two-part post, though I don't think there's a clear cut-and-dried explanation. But I'm going broader. We're taking a quantitative* look at which candidates are underperforming and overperforming compared to expectations. I will go through these candidates, from the ones who beat expectations significantly, starting with Pete Buttigieg and Andrew Yang, all the way down to the overhyped among the overhyped, which are Harris and Gillibrand.
As it turns out, this is a two- or three-parter, so in Part 1, I'll be covering Pete Buttigieg, Andrew Yang, Michelle Obama, Amy Klobuchar, and Joe Biden.
Draaaaaaaaaaaaft!
What's the best way to quantify hype? Probably a comprehensive analysis of editorials, podcasts, and the like throughout time, to analyze which candidates have the most favorable media coverage. However, that sounds like a lot of work, so I tried to find an easier way.
I remembered that FiveThirtyEight, my favorite politics coverage website, has done many primary drafts. If you're not familiar with them, a draft is a competition where each participant picks a candidate to add to their "team." If that candidate wins the election, they win the game, so the goal is to pick people with the best chance to win. Once each participant has picked, go back around for everyone's second choice, and third choice, and so on. By synthesizing the order in which each candidate was picked among four drafts, this provides a lens to examine who appeared promising, and who was overlooked.
And Now
I created a pick list for who I think has the best chance to win, right now, which is:
1. Joe Biden
2. Elizabeth Warren
3. Pete Buttigieg
4. Bernie Sanders
5. Amy Klobuchar
6. Andrew Yang
7. Michelle Obama, as a stand-in for other white horses–very popular people who are not running, but could do very well if they were to run
8. Cory Booker
And after that, everyone else has such a narrow path to victory that they're irrelevant in my opinion. Even Booker has under a 1% chance to win, in my view. In any case, if you want to nitpick and think that Warren has a better chance than Biden, or that Sanders has a better chance than Buttigieg, or whatever, those are totally legitimate views–they won't affect the final product.
By the way, if a candidate wasn't picked at all, I gave them a pick number of 30, since that was the highest that one of the drafts went up to.
Now, the Candidates
I'm going to go through the candidates in order of Overperformance Score,** and discuss why I think they over- or underperformed. You'll note that most candidates have a negative overperformance score. This is due to the fact that there were lots of people drafted.
Pete Buttigieg (+21.50)
Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana is a special politician. I was first introduced to Buttigieg by a New York Times editorial written by David Brooks titled "Why You Love Mayor Pete." "He is young," Brooks wrote, "and represents the rising generation, but he is also an older person’s idea of what a young person should be. He’d be the first millennial president, but Buttigieg doesn’t fit any of the stereotypes that have been affixed to America’s young people. Young people are supposed to be woke social justice warriors who are disgusted by their elders. Buttigieg is the model young man who made his way impressing his elders — Harvard, Rhodes scholar, McKinsey, the Navy."
I think the "model patriot" aesthetic he carries with him has allowed him to shine. He's just an impressive person, and he rode that wave to fourth place in national polls and a tentative first in Iowa. He overperformed because America is, by and large, just getting to know Pete Buttigieg, in contrast to the other candidates, and they're seeing how cool he is. The main anti-Buttigieg hot takes right now are about his inexperience and poor numbers with black voters, neither of which are all that big of issues, to be honest (the second is about his coalition, not even him).
Pete Buttigieg could win this election; if he loses, he's probably headed for a great political career–just not necessarily one ending in the Oval Office–unless he can become new and fresh again.
There was a point when I believed that he was the most likely among the candidates to be president eventually, if not now. 2028 Pete Buttigieg will be the best, I thought. But I'm not sure anymore. A lot of Mayor Pete's appeal is his newness and freshness. In eight years, he won't be something to get excited about anymore. For instance, Cory Booker ten or so years ago got attention similar to that of Pete Buttigieg a few months ago, and look where Booker is now: languishing at 0 to 1 to an occasional 2% in the polls. Pete Buttigieg could win this election; if he loses, he's probably headed for a great political career–just not necessarily one ending in the Oval Office–unless he can become new and fresh again.
Andrew Yang (+20.50)
Like Buttigieg, Andrew Yang was an unknown figure when he ran for president. He appeared to be a factional candidate that a few software developers in their 20s might get behind. But as it turns out, the so-called Yang Gang has been a loyal and passionate base, and he's attracted supporters from outside his base as well. So what, exactly, caused Yang to overperform? Everyone thought he was a joke. It turns out, he wasn't a joke.
Now that doesn't mean that I'm predicting a Yang win. It's quite unlikely that he will gain enough support to actually win the nomination. But I believe it could happen, which is not something I would have believed two years ago.
Michelle Obama, representing the white horses (+12.00)
I don't actually think Former First Lady Michelle Obama's chances to win the presidency are much different from a few years ago. I just gave her a relatively high pick since I think she has a semi-plausible path to victory and Julián Castro or whoever doesn't. I also think that people credit too many people with being white horses. Hillary Clinton is not a white horse. Neither is Mike Bloomberg. A white horse is both immensely popular and not clearly problematic to any faction of that party. In fact, I'm not sure anyone besides Obama is actually a white horse. Maybe Oprah Winfrey? Or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson?
Amy Klobuchar (+4.00)
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar was not favored from the outset. She appeared to be the type of candidate who no one despises, places about seventh in Iowa, and then drops out after never gaining traction. That could absolutely still happen. In fact, it probably will.
That said, after Kamala Harris dropped out, the December debate is going to consist of four white men and two white women (Warren and Klobuchar). A media narrative could easily surface, and I hope it does, along the lines of "The Democratic party is reverting back to white men because of 'electability.'" Klobuchar has a really good argument about how she is actually electable***–and she's effective too.
Joe Biden (+2.75)
In the second FiveThirtyEight primary draft, Former Vice President Joe Biden was picked fifth despite his lead in the polls.
"He doesn’t feel quite right for this particular moment," said Clare Malone, commenting on the pick.
"I mean, he’s old. Also, he’s a bit pre-#MeToo?" replied Micah Cohen.
"He doesn't feel quite right for this particular moment." –Clare Malone, 2018
At the time, "this particular moment" was the #MeToo movement. The second Year of the Woman, some called it. Joe Biden's touching issue looked like it would be front and center. Instead, it has faded into the background.
It's not a tremendously dramatic difference between now and expectations when it comes to Biden. But I think it reflects a reversion to the mean in America's conversation. The debate stage will still be historically diverse, that's the thing. Much of America wants to go back to the Obama presidency.
To these people, I would say that the fact that we have a President Trump is a symptom of a system promoting demagoguery and dishonesty. In the words of Mayor Pete Buttigieg, "There is no honest politics that revolves around the word 'again.'"
To these people, I would say that the fact that we have a President Trump is a symptom of a system promoting demagoguery and dishonesty.
That's It...For Now
We have plenty more candidates to go through–Elizabeth Warren is next up, and we'll get all the way down to Harris and Gillibrand. But I'm over my normal post length already, so I'll wrap it for now. If you're reading this at least a week after it's being published, click the link I'll paste in this post for Part 2. And who knows, maybe there'll be a Part 3. Stay tuned.
–beautifulthorns
Next: Part 2
*Sorta qualitative, actually, but it has numbers and isn't just my biased thoughts, so it counts as quantitative.
**Lots of people were picked, by the way, so I'm skipping a bunch. Don't worry, no one interesting.
***There were two Minnesota Senate elections in 2018–Amy Klobuchar's normal reelection, and a special election for the candidate to replace the disgraced Sen. Al Franken. The Democrat in the special election was then-Lt. Gov. Tina Smith, who the governor appointed to fill the seat, and so she was running to defend it. Smith earned 53% of the vote, and her opponent, Karin Housley, got 42%. Meanwhile, in the very same election, Klobuchar won with a 60%-36% margin. What that means is that a nonzero number of voters (apparently around 6%) voted for Housley in the special election but for Klobuchar in the regular election. Still don't believe me? In 2012, the last time Klobuchar's seat was up, then-Pres. Barack Obama carried the state 53%-45%. Klobuchar won 65%-30%. This implies that around 12% of Minnesotans voted for Republican Mitt Romney for president, but Klobuchar for Senate.
This implies that around 12% of Minnesotans voted for Republican Mitt Romney for president, but Klobuchar for Senate.
If Democratic voters care about electing a candidate who can do well with Midwestern voters, there is no better candidate than Amy Klobuchar for the job.