Previously: Part 1
Resuming where we left off last week! Many of these are going to be lightning rounds–I just don't have much to say about all of these people.
Elizabeth Warren (+1.75)
In 2017, during the first draft, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was viewed as a more substantive version of Bernie Sanders, a liberal who could appeal to the establishment. But by 2018, Warren looked substantially less promising. The DNA test scandal earned her months of bad media coverage. She went down to seventh pick.
By now, she has rebounded back to the front-runner status as the turmoil receded from view. Her "I have a plan" rhetoric has helped her shine. (That said, she's fading* in the polls in Iowa right now, and she'd have to rebound–though it's not a big deal.) Warren is well-positioned to be the next president.
Cory Booker (+0.50) and Julian Castro (-9.75)
76% of Americans have heard of New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker–which isn't a good sign, as he's still polling sixth or seventh. However, that doesn't mean they don't like him. Democrats really like Booker overall. I read his book, United. Recommend it. It's good. But not my first choice among candidate books.
He's just not the first choice of all that many voters.
He's just not the first choice of all that many voters. As a result, he won't be at the next debate, whereas Andrew Yang will. That can't be a good sign for his campaign, and I predict he will drop out soon.
Along with Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro, who got great reviews for his first debate performance but didn't get a corresponding polling bump, not hated***–but never caught fire.
Tulsi Gabbard (+0.00)
Three things to say:
1. Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard wasn't picked in a single Democratic draft and while she's probably in the top 30 most likely next presidents, her odds are under 1/1000, in my opinion. Everything has to go right, and it has to go very right. I shouldn't even be giving her airtime by mentioning her in this post.
2. Gabbard attacked the Democratic party at the most recent debate. You'd think the Democratic nominee would want to be nice to the Democratic party, which is popular among Democrats.
3. Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke put his support** behind Gabbard. She renounced it, of course, saying that "Publicizing Duke's so-called ‘endorsement’ is meant to distract from my message: that I will end regime-change wars, work to end the new cold war and take us away from the precipice of a nuclear war, which is a greater danger now than ever before." Still a somewhat fun fact.
Michael Bloomberg (+0.00)
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's campaign has made two mistakes, each fatal.
1. They want to skip (read: lose) the early states, traditionally responsible for winnowing the field. The winners of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada will send a message to the Democratic electorate about who the viable candidates are, and Bloomberg won't be on that lest.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's campaign has made two mistakes, each fatal.
2. They don't accept individual donors, instead opting to self-fund. Due to the DNC's rules, this completely sabotages Bloomberg's chance to make the debate. How do they think they're going to win? That's months of favorable news coverage for his adversaries and the easiest ways to get more voters on your side–eliminated. By his own campaign.
And that's not even mentioning the fact that he's the fourth-richest person in the world, not an asset in today's Democratic party, or that his social liberalism and economic conservatism could be the exact opposite of what Democratic voters want in a candidate.
In summary, I will bet you a significant amount of money with high odds that Bloomberg will not be elected as the next President of the United States.
Bernie Sanders (-1.00)
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has kept on Bernie Sanders-ing. He was a torchbearer of the left-wing of the Democratic party in 2018, so he was an obvious pick. He hasn't stopped doing that, but other, new torchbearers have stepped up. Will Sanders win? He's currently polling ahead of Warren in Iowa and New Hampshire (and nationally for that matter). If Warren drops out and endorses him, he has the potential to gain ground there, and possibly ride that to a victory–though if Warren stays in the race, it's hard to see how he expands his support.
Mark Cuban, representing the apolitical celebrities (-2.75)
Just because Trump was elected, doesn't mean he cleared the path for other random businesspeople and celebrities, like Mark Cuban. See my bit on reversion to the mean later.
Marianne Williamson (-4.50)
Marianne Williamson happened to be picked in one draft. She has a good message, but she's not presidential.
Hillary Clinton (-7.50)
I talked about why Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has basically no chance in my post about the Want-Think Fallacy.
Steve Bullock, representing the "electable" white men (-8.25)
Biden didn't falter. Or at least not soon enough.
Sherrod Brown, representing the qualified people that didn't run (-9.50)
Thanks for not running! We have enough candidates already. (Deval Patrick gets a dishonorable mention for ending up running at the last moment.)
Beto O'Rourke (-12.75)
Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke was an unknown figure during the first draft. He wasn't picked at all. But by the time the final draft came around, he had risen to third pick. His initial fundraising was great.
But he flopped.
Kirsten Gillibrand (-24.50) and Kamala Harris (-27.75)
Now we get into the thesis topic. Why did New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and California Sen. Kamala Harris both fail? More than any other candidate, Gillibrand and Harris, as well as O'Rourke, have dropped out after a promising start. The chart below illustrates their extreme situations.
Well, all three of these candidates have explanations for dropping out. One could argue that O'Rourke was overshadowed by Pete Buttigieg as the trendy white guy. One could argue that Gillibrand (and Harris, actually) were too malleable and changed their minds too much. One could argue that Harris's bad internal campaign structure led her to mismanage, say, the aftermath of the first debate. One could argue that each of the candidates' focuses on identity politics was off-putting.
But perhaps a more interesting fact is that these candidates were all "rising stars." No one was suggesting Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand in 2016 for president, compared to, say, Biden or Warren. Sanders actually ran, as you might know.
Reversion to the Mean
Reversion to the mean (or average) is, essentially, the idea that an improbable result is usually an outlier and not the new normal. For instance, if I were to rank the temperatures in several cities with similar conditions, the hottest city in 2018 is probably going to be a bit cooler in 2019, and the coldest city is 2018 is likely to be warmer come 2019. This is, in fact, true.
Here's another example. If Donald Trump wins the Republican primary in 2016, that doesn't mean Trumplike candidates will be the Republican nominees forevermore. What's most likely is that the party has a reversion to the mean away from Trump.
Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand weren't tried-and-true. They just looked good in the moment America was having in 2018. (Sidenote: Pete Buttigieg is the epitome of this. We'll see what happens with him and how prescient I look when the Democrats pick their nominee.)
Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand weren't tried-and-true. They just looked good in the moment America was having in 2018.
That said, I'm not saying America won't go for a woman or minority again. Reversion to the mean, people. The moment we're having now–the "Look at the all-white-except-Andrew-Yang debate stage. Is that what we've become?" will, in time, fade.
The Truths We Hold
In any case, Kamala Harris may have dropped out of this race. But I wanted to take some time to plug her autobiography, The Truths We Hold.**** Candidate aside, it's simply a powerful call to action, and a story of triumph and a crusade for justice. Here's the ending:
"Years from now, our children and our grandchildren will look up and lock eyes with us. They will ask us where we were when the stakes were so high. They will ask us what it was like. I don’t want us to just tell them how we felt. I want us to tell them what we did."
"Years from now, our children and our grandchildren...will ask us what it was like. I don’t want us to just tell them how we felt. I want us to tell them what we did." –Sen. Kamala Harris
That's an unbelievably great call to action! (Best part: it works for many situations.)
–beautifulthorns
*For the longest time people kept saying she was "plateauing," which bothered me because plateauing is not actually a bad thing when it's a high plateau. This is a graph from the Internet of a plateau.
As you can see, it's good towards the end. Look how far we've come!
**Though I think he has officially endorsed Trump, he supports both.
***Biden attack during one of the debates aside.
****I've read six candidates' autobiographies (I was thinking of doing a post on the subject) but I'm not sure I'll ever write a blog post, so I figured I'd spill the beans now. Promise Me, Dad by Joe Biden–emotional. Visceral. Good. This Fight is Our Fight by Elizabeth Warren and Our Revolution by Bernie Sanders–the same book, policy-focused, but good nevertheless. Warren's is a bit better. And I mentioned The Truths We Hold by Kamala Harris and United by Cory Booker earlier. (This was back when Booker was in "sixth place.")