Why You're Wrong About the Democratic Primary

[brooklynite]

Politico

Warren’s down! No, she’s back! O’Rourke is hot! No, he’s faltering! Biden is dead on arrival! No, he’s unstoppable! The 2020 Democratic presidential campaign already has the feel of a stock market, with TV pundits and Internet prediction experts monitoring the minute-by-minute movements on the big board.

There’s much to praise about all this attention. It provides gainful employment for hundreds, if not thousands, of campaign workers, journalists, pollsters and hotel, restaurant and car-rental employees. It offers leisure-time speculation for the millions of TV viewers searching for a successor to “Game of Thrones.” And in the pages and on the websites of our best journalistic enterprises, it even provides detailed, tough-minded looks at what the women and men in the race intend to do with the powers they seek.

Here’s what it does not do, though: tell us what will actually happen in 2020. If voters and the news media take that to heart, and focus our attention on the character and the intentions of the candidates instead of who’s winning eight months before anyone votes, the coverage—and the choosing—will be better for it.

And what the history of modern presidential nominating contests suggests about this moment is that the seemingly daily polling, and the “she’s-surging-he’s failing” stories, have all the staying power of sandcastles at high tide. The last half century of presidential primaries is a catalog of slow erosions of “insurmountable” leads, sudden shifts of the current, candidates left for dead who have revived and triumphed, front-runners hit with a blow from nowhere that recalibrated the certainties of a moment ago. If there’s a candidate you like in this race who you feel isn’t getting the attention she deserves, it’s far too early to fret. The history is varied enough to worry every one of the top-tier candidates, and provide comfort to most, or even all, of the rest. Even John Delaney. Here are a few lessons for the field.

[marylandblue]

1. Pundits, like generals, are always analyzing the previous campaigns.

[emmaverybo]

2. Absolutely agree. A commentator today said Democrats love an underdog. Well, I think we

all love an exciting narrative. Classic storytelling is all about the questing protagonist who faces
adversity, gets through, only to face more of same, but whose doggedness sees her to the prize.
I think one reason many here might find Biden uninspiring is that he doesn’t have a heroic journey to embark upon. He comes pretty much launched, tested, and right now, as expected, is the front-runner. He just does not have that “story” we can breathlessly watch unfold.
But Warren, Mayor Pete, Kamala Harris, for example, do. Beto, despite privilege, does in that he’s
fighting now with no predictable outcome to his narrative, and coming from behind. Lots of room for character trajectory as we see him tested.
We can expect the unexpected. I see no candidate who can not rise only to be cast down by Republican dirty tricks, which will be sprung last minute.

[oldsoftie]

3. Nothing really matters until March. And then nothing will matter until October.

Most voters pay little attention to all this until the last few weeks.
Most voters are nothing like DU members.

[Hortensis]

4. Enjoyed the summaries of various elections, thanks.

The author's very unjudgemental about the candidates, but -- besides the theme being addressed -- it's rather horrifying to look back on the various flakes, scoundrels and creeps surging to challenge and even lead at various times. It's like all the bullets dodged by an erratic electorate regrouped and found their way to their target with Trump.

Very sobering is that back then, for instance, the voters admiringly propelling Giuliani toward the presidency had no idea he was a person who would plot to kidnap someone in America and deliver him to hell on earth for money, lots of money.