This blog topic are some of my thoughts from the first two nights of the 2020 Democratic Party’s presidential debates.
I see it is as the beginning of the end for some. But, it can be more promising for at least one.
Night #01
Write off Beto O’Rourke—who I rate as having delivered the worst first-night performance—for being empty and saying nothing of sincerity or substance. Dismiss John Delaney for being anti-Medicare for All and making a general statement that the Democratic Party should fix problems (which is ironic because his statement about Medicare for All is not in line with wanting to think of fixing a problem). Tim Ryan started with some thoughts about the working people—appeal to the Rust Belt—which were fine; and then he falsely identified who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001—and he was out-debated by the one candidate authentically anti-war. And Amy Klobuchar, who has adjusted her anti-free college tuition position to say she is okay with it a community college level, leaves me wondering, “How is she compelling people—moving people—to want to vote her the nomination?”
In the middle were Cory Booker and Jay Inslee—two candidates who didn’t foul up too much but neither has a lasting impact. Booker says some things he should say, as a politician, and Inslee can brag about signing Climate Change bills in his position as Governor of Washington.
The four who fared best were: Elizabeth Warren, for coming across like she is truly on board for Medicare for All. (That isn’t to say how much I believe it. She sounded, in the moment, like she is determined to deliver.) Bill de Blasio embraced progressive bona fides, which means he is politically aware, and was smart with being aggressive in the debates while others needed to do the same. Julian Castro was smart with debating immigration (and he was much superior to the 2018 U.S. Senate nominee from Texas). And Tulsi Gabbard—who was given short shrift for about 90 minutes by Comcast-owned NBC News (and she was given a smear/gotcha first question as a means to possibly influence unfamiliar viewers to look at her with a negative first impression)—had the best moment of the night with the debate question on Afghanistan (and her out-debating the pro-war congressman from Ohio’s 13th Congressional District). It is a good thing, following the debate, Gabbard trended best on Google. It was necessary for her.
Night #02
Write off John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet. Neither is a fool. They are politically manipulating an attempt to encourage a status quo corporatist hold of their party. (Especially tasteless was Hickenlooper boasting of a progressive record despite his being a big supporter of the fossil-fuel industry.) The urgency of Medicare for All, and more issues, are something they are not able to sway. (That is good.) Performing very badly was Joe Biden, because he used his record—the good parts, of course—as the back support for making his case that he should be the nominee but he was taken apart by two candidates from California. One of them was Eric Swalwell, a candidate not politically dumb but who is not compelling. He is the gun-control candidate. But, he is not anywhere near the No. 1 issue for 2020; and this has me thinking of him in the same light as the senior U.S. senator from Minnesota. (Points to Swalwell for getting the music started to pass the message to Biden: pass the torch. Yes, it is insulting to tell that to an elderly person. But, it was good. Swalwell, though, does not have enough to offer.)
In the middle were Kirsten Gillibrand, who did what the New York mayor did last night—make sure she was heard, often so, and have energy. Marianne Williamson, although sometimes not stating positions on Medicare for All (that could get me to vote her the nomination), had moments of showing she thinks outside some boxes. Pete Buttigieg, who I do not support (because his manipulation on Medicare for All), did not get discredited by any other candidate and accomplished coming across as a decent candidate to the liking of his party establishment. And Andrew Yang, though he didn’t make enough use of his limited time by creating and/or having a shining moment (as it happened on the first night with the congresswoman from Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District)—and we should have had more of him on universal basic income—had one of the best closing remarks.
The ones who were performed best were: Kamala Harris, very much a politician, who deserves credit for taking to task the 47th U.S. vice president for his waxing nostalgic over his past (stances on school busing). There is a craftiness to Harris. And Bernie Sanders, whose highly progressive vision has set much the tone of where and how these other candidates have to be politically positioned, had no problem fielding manipulative framings of questions by the NBC News panel. It’s early. But, Sanders is in a really good position.
These were just debate-performance assessments by me. The first two days. This is not to say how I would rank these candidates on their worthiness for nomination and, if the 2020 Democrats flip the White House, the presidency of the United States. (Although I did indicate so with a few, like the write-off candidates.) My position remains the same: Bernie Sanders, followed by Tulsi Gabbard—but none of the rest.
It was on this day ten years ago, June 25, 2009, which marked the deaths of two famous celebrities: Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett.
Reports of Emmy nominee and Charlies Angels star Farrah Fawcett’s death, at age 62, was not surprising given she had been suffering from cancer.
Reports of Grammy winner Michael Jackson’s death, at age 50, was surprising because it happened on the same date, hours apart, and there was more drama to the death of the “King of Pop.”
The first video, published to YouTube by member SuchIsLifeVideos, is part 1 (of 5) of the same-day tribute to Fawcett from ABC’s 20/20 and its host Barbara Walters.
The second video, published to YouTube by CNN, are clips as the day unfolded leading to the death of Jackson.
Published June 20, 2019, to YouTube, the above video from MCSC Network’s Niko House has the following description:
“Trump launched his re-election campaign a couple days ago in Orlando, Florida. Orlando is largely a Democratic stronghold. However, that did not stop Trump from [holding] the largest campaign rally since the 2020 election [period] began back in January [2019].”
Progressives Chat reader The_Fixer asked me for my response to a video posted by Jamarl Thomas about Quinnipiac University’s most recent polling for both the primaries and general election of 2020.
I considered posting a response this past Friday [June 14, 2019]. But, due to the birthday of current and 45th U.S. president Donald Trump, the timing was not quite right.
There is another consideration: I have a lengthy response. (It is a lot to read.) So, combining two topics into one would not have been appropriate.
I will highlight parts of the poll with screen shots followed by my comments.
Here is a screen shot of party support, for the primaries, according to age and income (the latter is not a part of my focus):
I do not think this poll will jibe with what will play out in 2020. If you’re badly wanting Donald Trump unseated, you should not want this. According to the primaries poll, Joe Biden leads Bernie Sanders nationally by +11. Since the 50 states participating in Democratic presidential primaries, dating back to 1976, this margin is comparable to 1988 Michael Dukakis (who won by +13) and 2016 Hillary Clinton (who, for however much of it you believe, won by +12). And they both lost in the general election.
One example, which I don’t believe, is telling me those in “DemLn” (Democratic leaning), which are really independents who are willing to participate voting in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, the person who is in the lead is Joe Biden. I don’t buy into it. Biden is ahead of Bernie Sanders by +5. The 50+ voters are where Joe Biden is leading, well ahead of second-place Elizabeth Warren, by +26. Now, I don’t think Sanders would get only 5 percent from 50+ voters. Basically, that says Biden is ahead of Sanders, with 50+ voters, by +45 points. Well, that was nearly the level by which Hillary Clinton won the oldest age group, 65+ voters, in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. (Hillary did not carry 45–64 voters by that level.) Sanders also won by nearly that level with the youngest voting-age group, those 17–29. (Meaning, when it came down to a two-person race, Hillary won 65+ voters with at least 70 percent, as did Bernie having won the 17–29 primaries voters. That left the second-place results just under 30 percent with each.) Here, with 18–49, Sanders is ahead of Biden by +14. That really combines with the second age group, those 30–44.
I sense there still remains a divided Democratic Party for the bookends of those age groups. That 17–29 and 65+ are on opposite ends. That 17–29 are more on the left and 65+ are more on the right specifically in the Democratic Party. Why? Experience. The 65+ voters are the ones who marveled at Bill Clinton unseating George Bush in 1992 and, with winning re-election in 1996, being the first Democratic U.S. president elected to more than one term since Franklin Roosevelt from 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. (Forty years prior to Clinton, the 1952 and 1956 elections of Republican U.S. president Dwight Eisenhower made him the first from his party to win more than one term since William McKinley from 1896 and 1900.) So, I think this age group is aligning with the party establishment of the 1990s—looking at them as the gold standard—with its philosophy to make sure to not move the party significantly and meaningfully to the left. This age group, especially 65+ voters, has bought into Clintonism. They loved Bill. They loved Hillary. They may love Biden.
A part of the problem I have with the poll is the age breakdowns are too broad. There are four commonly recorded voting-age groups in general elections: 18–29 (you can be 17 in the primaries as long as you are 18 on Election Day); 30–44; 45–64; and 65+. (I was 44 in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries and 45 in the general election. So, it is interesting to transition between those in-between age groups.) In the last two presidential election cycles, 2012 and 2016, Democrats carried the younger half while Republicans carried the older half in the general elections. A problem with the party’s Hillary-vs.-Bernie, in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, was that he won the younger two groups while she won the older two groups. Hillary Clinton, as the official nominee, went into the general election with party-age support that is won in general elections by the Republicans. She moved into the general election without the party support that delivered the 2012 U.S. Popular Vote to a re-elected Barack Obama. (In the general election, 18–29 voters were key to her losing Wisconsin. 2016 Hillary went down from 2012 Obama’s margin of +23—a match for his national support when he won the state by +6.94 and the U.S. Popular Vote by +3.86—to carrying them with a thin margin of +3 as she lost the state, to Trump, by –0.76.)
The 2020 Democratic presidential primaries can play out similarly to 2016. The 65+ primaries voters, if they are once again a polar opposite of those between 17–29, can be more the determining factor for who wins the nomination. In the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, the older block of 45–64 and 65+ voters combined for a size of the vote just over 60 percent. The younger block of 17–29 and 30–44 voters combined for a size of the vote just under 40 percent. In general elections, it is more like 53 to 47 percent rather than, say, 61 to 39 percent. (This is going by exit polls.) That is what helped with Hillary in 2016. So, the younger half needs to turn out a lot more with participating voting in presidential primaries, to cast a larger size of their vote state-to-state and nationwide, because in 2016 they were outweighed by the older half. And, keep in mind, the primaries from 2016 were not numbers representing a united party. If this essentially repeats in 2020, it can very well lead to an implosion in the Democratic Party—which may actually be necessary—and re-election for Republican incumbent U.S. president Donald Trump.
In general elections, there is this reality: If you are a winning Republican or a winning Democrat, you can claim two out of three age groups nationwide. You will likely not win the bookends. Republicans will not win nowadays voters 18–29 nationwide while Democrats will not win voters 65+ nationwide; well, not unless you’re winning nationwide by more than +10, perhaps closer to +15, percentage points. Win with enough of a popular-vote margin, you can take the second to the first or last groups. 2004 re-elected Republican incumbent George W. Bush, whose margin in the U.S. Popular Vote was +2.46 percentage points, won voters 30–44 to go along with 45–64 and his party’s base 65+. 2008 Democratic presidential pickup winner Barack Obama, whose margin in the U.S. Popular Vote was +7.26 percentage points, flipped voters 30–44 and 45–64 to go along with his party’s base 18–29. But, in 2012 and 2016, the margins for Obama (+3.86) and Hillary (+2.09) were at a level leaving a result of splitting the electorate for the U.S. Popular Vote. Now, I will say something else—later on—about that general-election margin for Hillary as to what would have applied to Trump had 2016 been more normal. (So, stay tuned.)
Quinnipiac University also reported polling on theoretical general-election matchups for 2020.
Here is a screen shot:
Also in its polls, Quinnipiac University reports: “In the Trump–Biden matchup, women back Biden 60–34 percent, as men are divided with 47 percent for Biden and 46 percent for Trump. White voters are divided with 47 percent for Trump and 46 percent for Biden. The Democrat leads 85–12 percent among black voters and 58–33 percent among Hispanic voters.”
What do I make of this?
It does not jibe with reality.
In 2016, the national support from white voters were Trump +21. Mitt Romney, the losing Republican nominee from 2012, carried whites nationally by +20. This poll report has Trump winning whites nationally by only +1. That is a 20-point Democratic shift. (The last winning Democrat to nationally carry whites was 1964 Lyndon Johnson.) But, look at the poll numbers for blacks! In the 2008 Democratic pickup year for Barack Obama, he won blacks nationally by +91. (It was 95 percent for Obama to 4 percent for losing Republican John McCain.) With re-election in 2012, Obama carried blacks by +87. (He went down to 93 percent to the 6 percent for Romney. Remember: Obama underperformed his second-term re-election compared to his first. Typically, presidents re-elected to a second term win with increased numbers including their electoral-vote scores.) In this report, with the combined percentages amounting the two-party vote to 97 percent (which was in the same range from 2004, 2008, and 2012), Biden polls with black support by +73. In 2016, with the presidency having flipped Republican (and the two-party vote combining for nearly 94 percent), losing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton carried blacks nationally by +81. (She received 89 percent to the 8 percent for Trump.) And, among Hispanics, Obama won them nationally by +36 (in 2008) and +44 (in 2012). Hillary won them by +38 (in 2016). So, the quoted numbers of non-whites for Biden, with him also winning Hispanics by +25, are underperformances of 2016 Hillary Clinton. Get this: For the gender vote, Biden takes Hillary’s national carriage of women, by +13, and wins them by +26 (a 2016-to-2020 national shift of +13), and he wins a Democratic pickup of men by +1 (following Hillary’s loss of –11, that would be a national shift of +12.) In terms of the racial demographics, Biden is a candidate for whites—even though whites are the first to get carried nationally by Republicans—while he underperforms with blacks and Hispanics, down by –8 and –13 points (from 2016 Hillary Clinton), while winning the U.S. Popular Vote, and with it a Democratic pickup of the presidency by a landslide U.S. Popular Vote margin of +13.
This does not pass my smell test.
Now, as for those general-election margins for those Democratic candidates: Since at least 1932, every time the White House switched parties, the Republican and Democratic pickup winners won an average net gain of, say, +1 to +1.5 states with each percentage point nationally shifted in their direction (from the previous election cycle). 2000 Republican pickup winner George W. Bush—who flipped 11 states with a popular-vote margin shift of +8.00—won a net gain average of +1.37 states. 2008 Democratic pickup winner Barack Obama—who flipped 9 states (and the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska; Omaha and surrounding areas) with a popular-vote margin shift of +9.72—won a net gain average of approximately +1 state.
In 2016, Republican pickup winner Donald Trump lost the U.S. Popular Vote by –2.09 because, in reality, California went from Obama +23.09 to Hillary +29.99, a Democratic shift of +6.90 in a presidential election in which Democrats were the incumbent White House party and the presidency flipped Republican. (For 2016 Hillary, her raw-vote margin from California was 150 percent her national support. For 2012 Obama, his raw-vote margin from California was about 60 percent his national support.) In other words, this was not in line with normal voting pattern. So, I figure, with Romney’s loss in the U.S. Popular Vote by –3.86, had Trump won a 2016 Republican pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote, his electoral-map outcome with Republican pickups—Top 10 populous states Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, No. 20-ranked Wisconsin, No. 31-ranked Iowa, and the 2nd Congressional District of Maine (Bangor and surrounding areas)—would have nationally shifted +6.00 to +6.50 percentage points. Trump’s winning margin would have been +2.15 to +2.64.
For estimating the electoral map for Election 2020, I work with +2/–2 and reach a compromise: Even. Yes, +0. Trump, with his –2.09, can win the Electoral College with –1 and +0. (I don’t know how California—approximately 12 percent the entire nation—will trend with shifting its 2016-to-2020 margins.) There is also the possibility Trump can lose one or two states with a popular-vote margin of –3 and still get re-elected. But, a popular-vote margin of –4 makes Trump lose all of the Rust Belt trio: Michigan (his No. 30 best state), Pennsylvania (his No. 29), and Wisconsin (his No. 28 and the tipping point state of 2016; my hunch is that state may again be the tipping point in 2020). Another reality is this: There have been only three presidential elections in which the winner carried less than half the states: 1824 John Quincy Adams (corrupt election in which he won 7 of 24 states; 29 percent); 1960 John Kennedy (22 of 50 states; 44 percent); and 1976 Jimmy Carter (23 of 50 states; 46 percent). It is likely we will see it continue and the next Democratic pickup winner will carry at least 26 states.
So, what do I figure? In 2008, Obama’s Democratic pickup was his winning the U.S. Popular Vote by +7.26 and having carried 28 states, the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska (one-third that state’s vote), and District of Columbia. With re-election, in 2012, Obama won by +3.86 and carried 26 states and District of Columbia. Had a normal voting pattern aligned in 2016 with the U.S. Popular Vote, rather than +2.09, Hillary Clinton would have lost with a margin of –2 with her carriage of 20 states and District of Columbia. So, in state counts, prevailing Democrats may be on course nowadays to carry +22 states in excess of their whole number [estimate] of their U.S. Popular Vote margins.
The following, in accordance to Quinnipiac University’s polling report, is where the map would be for a prevailing Democrat with a popular-vote margin of +5 to +13. Those at +5, a 2016-to-2020 net gain of +7 states for carriage of 27 states, are in light blue to indicate they would be pickups. Anything beyond that appears in yellow (meaning, states 28 to 35; you can see the list of the 2016 margins, and where states came in for Trump–vs.–Hillary here: Election 2020’s Key Bellwethers: The Rust Belt Trio Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan). Those are the states subject for pickups going all the way up to that margin of +13, in the U.S. Popular Vote, for the carriage of 35 states. From Hillary Clinton’s column of best-performed states, Nos. 21 to 35, were: 21) Michigan; 22) Pennsylvania; 23) Wisconsin (tipping point); 24) Florida; Nebraska #02; 25) Arizona; 26) North Carolina; 27) Georgia; 28) Ohio; 29) Texas; 30) Iowa; Maine #02; 31) South Carolina; 32) Alaska; 33) Mississippi; 34) Utah; and 35) Missouri. (Indiana, at No. 36, was a half-point more Republican than Missouri.) For those listed (and starting with Hillary’s losing map): Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg, with 27 states, flip from Michigan to Georgia (350 electoral votes); Elizabeth Warren, with 29 states, flip from Michigan to Texas (406 electoral votes); Kamala Harris, with 30 states, flip from Michigan to Iowa (and, I would add, the 2nd Congressional District of Maine; 413 electoral votes); Bernie Sanders, with 31 states, flip from Michigan to South Carolina (422 electoral votes); and, most special of all, Joe Biden, with 35 states, flip from Michigan to Missouri (447 electoral votes).
Do I buy into this?
No.
At 270 to Win, the site from which I filled in the above map, it provides links to well-trusted polling outlets The Cook–Political Report and Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball [University of Virginia]. Neither are offering up scenario electoral maps which show the 2020 Democrats in position to flipping the presidency to the tune of carrying 27 to 35 states. (They’re not even reaching a potential 25.) Sabato’s site has Michigan leaning as a Democratic pickup but long-established bellwether Florida leaning as a Republican hold. (My sense is that Rust Belts Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, as well as Florida—a 2016 margins spread of just under a full percentage point—will carry the same.) The two pollsters both have Georgia as a lean Republican hold. Excuse me! But, if 2020 ends up a Democratic pickup of the presidency, it is not likely the pickup winner gains only three or four states (Rust Belts Michigan, Pennsylvania, and tipping point Wisconsin, as well as one of Florida or Arizona; possibly as well the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska). It would be likely a 2020 Democratic pickup winner would gain at least +6 states. I think The Cook–Political Report and Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball, without saying so, are leaning Election 2020 to a Republican hold and re-election for Trump.
These recent poll numbers, including from Quinnipiac University, are getting self-identified Democrats excited. They figure they will have no problem unseating Donald Trump. But, during the 20th century, only once did we get two consecutive presidential elections of switching the White House party: 1976 (Democratic pickup for Jimmy Carter) and 1980 (Republican pickup for Ronald Reagan). In other words: When the nation flips the White House party, it doesn’t often welcome back in the very next cycle the party the voters booted out. So, the history suggests more a favorable pattern of a 2020 Republican hold with re-election for Trump. If that actually plays out, I can imagine the 2020 Democrats nominating yet another corporatist, like Joe Biden, losing to a re-elected Trump, and then avoiding looking back at a poll like this to reminded them what fools they turned out to be.
I sense the Democratic Party Establishment wants to make sure, No. 1, the 2020 presidential nominee will not be an actual progressive—Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard—and a poll like this, plus other ones making noise, are designed to get self-identified Democrats (and independents who lean toward the Democrats) to vote the nomination to Joe Biden. Right now. If it wasn’t Biden, specifically, it would be someone else comfortable with the party establishment. (I do not trust Elizabeth Warren.)
This reminds me of an idea I had. If I could change the party-animal logos of the Republican and the Democratic parties, I would go with the following: with the Republicans, they would go from the elephant to the pig; with the Democrats, they would go from the donkey to the sheep. Polls lately pushing for Biden—and let us keep in mind no member of Congress who voted for wars in Vietnam or Iraq was elected U.S. president; and no former U.S. vice president unseated an incumbent U.S. president—is a way for the corporate Democratic Party Establishment, and their allies (and I wouldn’t put it past pollsters), to herd the sheep.
The date of this blog topic is posted on what is also the 73rd birthday of current and 45th United States president Donald Trump.
I decided, and I suppose it passes as a tribute, to post some videos showing Donald Trump in a better light than what I actually think of him. (I don’t have positive feelings of his leadership. Put it this way: Donald Trump is the United States’s First Troll President.)
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviewed a future U.S. president Donald Trump in 2007. The first video is of Trump assessing then-U.S. president George W. Bush. The second video is of Trump with further comments on Bush as well as 2008 Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
The next video is from a 2016 Republican presidential debate on CBS. It was a moment for Trump that has me thinking, for the next election cycle in which the Democrats flip the presidency, the eventual nominee needs to say something in a similar way to the prior Democratic Party U.S. president, Barack Obama, and very possibly Bill Clinton. In other words, a vanquishing of one’s party’s prior U.S. president—for disastrous policy and/or leadership—is actually good. It was an example of moving one’s party forward.
Some observations concerning the 2020 presidential primaries:
On the Republican side, incumbent 45th U.S. president Donald Trump is in position to easily win re-nomination. His party approval, from polls, is approximately 90 percent.
Since all 50 states have been participating with voting in presidential primaries—for the Democrats, it was 1976; for the Republicans, it was 1980—there have been two incumbent U.S. presidents who became unseated. They both came from separate parties. And they both saw at least 20 percent party support reduced and cast for a primaries challenger.
• In 1980, Democratic incumbent U.S. president Jimmy Carter was re-nominated with 51.1 percent. Rival Ted Kennedy received 37.6 percent.
• In 1992, Republican incumbent U.S. president George Bush was re-nominated with 72.8 percent. Rival Pat Buchanan received 23.0 percent.
For all those U.S. presidents, during this period, who won re-elections to a second term, they received approximately (or even above) 90 percent in party support for re-nomination.
• 1984 Republican incumbent U.S. president Ronald Reagan was re-nominated with 98.8 percent.
• 1996 Democratic incumbent U.S. president Bill Clinton was re-nominated with 89.0 percent.
• 2004 Republican incumbent U.S. president George W. Bush was re-nominated with 98.1 percent.
• 2012 Democratic incumbent U.S. president Barack Obama was re-nominated with 88.9 percent.
Why is this important? In general elections, in which the two-party vote combines in the area of 97 to 99 percent (it was considerably less so in 1980, 1992, and 1996; it was almost 94 percent in 2016), Republicans and Democrats receive between 88 to 93 percent in same-party vote. To finish lower than 88 percent, in an election in which there was a range of 97 to 99 percent for the two-party vote, means likely loss.
For the year 2020, with a United States presidential election with a Republican incumbent U.S. president, the question (which cannot factually be answered with this blog topic here on June 10, 2019) is this: Will 2020 become a Republican hold or a Democratic pickup of the presidency of the United States?
The party approval rating suggests Trump is in a fairly good position for re-election. But, from numerous polls, I get the sense it is wise to rate the race, right now, as a tossup. The 1980 to 2016 primaries, and given those were the years of their general elections, was a period of 36 years and 10 election cycles. They represent a lot of years in the life of any individual. (I was 9 in 1980. I was 45 in 2016.) But, I would prefer a longer period of history—for all 50 states participating in the primaries—to use as a guide for whether that 90 percent or better in party approval speaks more clearly to re-election. If Trump does get unseated, I have already mentioned who I think has the ability. What also needs to be considered is how the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries would play out for that nominee with respect for the earliest part of the calendar.
It would not be good to win the first two contests—both Iowa and New Hampshire—because of a well-established pattern.
Starting in 1980, every time the White House switched parties, the Republican or Democratic presidential pickup winner’s first nomination was won with winning not both Iowa and New Hampshire. It was, in almost every example, winning in one of those two states.
For 2000 Republican pickup winner George W. Bush, he won in Iowa but not New Hampshire. For 1980 and 2016 Republican pickup winners Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, they prevailed in New Hampshire but not Iowa. The 2008 Democratic pickup winner Barack Obama won in Iowa but not New Hampshire. For 1992 Democratic pickup winner Bill Clinton, there was at least one twist. Iowa was the home state of candidate Tom Harkin. That state was pretty much conceded by others seeking the party’s nomination. (Harkin won Iowa with more than 75 percent.) In New Hampshire, Clinton finished in second. Between the two states, Clinton came a lot closer to winning in New Hampshire and losing Iowa. (Paul Tsongas, who died at age 55 on January 18, 1997, prevailed in New Hampshire by +8.42 percentage points. Given his fate, it may have been for the best that Tsongas did not win the nomination.)
When it came to the last two losing Republican challengers, who failed to unseat Democratic incumbent U.S. presidents, 1996 Bob Dole won in Iowa but not New Hampshire, and 2012 Mitt Romney won in New Hampshire but not Iowa. When it came to the last two losing Democratic challengers, who failed to unseat Republican incumbent U.S. presidents, 1984 Walter Mondale won in Iowa but not New Hampshire, but 2004 John Kerry won in both. And that is what I will address next.
In two consecutive election cycles, 2000 and 2004, the ones which were Republican victories at the presidential level for George W. Bush, losing Democratic nominees Al Gore and John Kerry won both Iowa and New Hampshire.
Gore won all 50 states as he received 75.4 percent to the 21.0 percent for Bill Bradley. Kerry won 46 states as he received 61.0 percent to the 19.4 percent for top runner-up John Edwards. (In the states count, Edwards won two: his home state North Carolina and neighboring South Carolina. Also on the map, Howard Dean won his home state Vermont, and Wesley Clark of Oklahoma won Arkansas. Reminder: All party nominees won in the primaries their respective home state. For any candidate who failed to carry his or her home state in the primaries [an example with 2016 Republican candidate Marco Rubio as his home state, Florida, was won right out from under him by eventual nominee Donald Trump]…well, that was a contributing factor explaining why that individual did not win his or her party’s nomination.)
The point is this: In a presidential election in which one’s preferred party prevails with party-flipping the White House—whether it is a term-limited year for an incumbent U.S. president or that incumbent U.S. president gets unseated—it is not a good to see a Republican or Democratic presidential pickup winner not well-challenged in the primaries. A lot of people have said they want no such thing. This is not because they don’t want a contest. They feel a lengthy period can become too stressful—and lead to a loss. But, the history shows they should be wanting to see the opposite.
I will not predict, at this time, who will end up the 2020 Democratic nominee for president of the United States. But, I mention all this because I think this past history is worth keeping in mind as we continue to move toward and into the year 2020.
The site Political Wire, by Taegan Goddard, loves the corporate Democratic Party Establishment. Sometimes, I like to have fun.
The incessant push for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination to go to Joe Biden—really, just a way of the corporate Democratic Party Establishment saying, “Anybody but an actual progressive like Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard”—is supported by most of the posting members on that site. Needless to say, when I comment...I piss them off.
