Saturday, May 4, 2019

What do Democrats want?

The theoretical nominee.

CBS News did a poll. No names. Just attributes.



Democrats think they want a black woman in her 50s, with a record in government service.  


Kamala Harris fits the bill. But then real life interferes with theory.

This blog wrote yesterday that there is a mis-match between the thinking of political activists and the typical rank and file voter who shows up on election days, but doesn't otherwise get too involved. People who read this blog are in the first category. 

We are out of touch with reality.

Reality is that most people have busy lives that involve work, family, church, health, TV, money issues, sports, hobbies--the stuff of life.--but politics not so much.

Most voters do politics the way I do sports. I pay almost no attention, but do watch the Super Bowl. The swing voters in America--the people who control American self-government--are those swing, marginal voters, who pay no attention until the last minute of a primary or general election, then vote based on impressions.
People "profile." Some people look and sound like leaders. Others look like sidekicks. If Don Knotts plays the hero, it is in a comedy, in which the doofus surprises everyone, because it is so contrary to expectations.

Clint Eastwood is the tough guy. He doesn't look or sound or carry himself like a sidekick.  

What does that have to do with politics? A lot. Voters are the casting director in an action film

Marginal swing voters are beginning to get impressions of their preferred hero in the battle against Trump. I posit the 7-Trait Rule. Most voters are hard pressed to list seven discrete traits about a candidate.  Most know three or four things, then they make guesses and inferences. They take a quick look, they listen a bit, then they decide if that person seems right. 

Sidekick
(This blog wrote, back at the very beginning of the campaign in August, 2015, that Hillary Clinton had a problem.)

The CBS poll got right at the characteristics that a casting director would consider: age, race, and gender. Democrats say they would favor a female candidate, everything else being equal, by a margin of 59-41.

They say they prefer a black candidate to a white candidate by a factor of 60-40, but this statistic is affected by the fact that black voters prefer a black candidate by a 2 to 1 margin and Latino voters prefer a Latino.  Still, a bare majority of white Democrats said--everything being equal--they, too, would prefer a black candidate.


Voters do care about age, with candidates in their 40s and 50s being chosen in matchups by 57% of voters. Candidates in the 60s are chosen by 50%; people in their 70s by 37%. Even people over 70 chose the younger candidate.

Those identity markers are only part of the story. Voters are looking for personality and character, and it is communicated by bearing and tone.  

Tough guy

Last night MSNBC displayed results of a poll that named candidate names, not just demographic markers, and I was able to snap a photo of it as it wisked by.

In the abstract, Kamala Harris should be the ideal candidate, and possibly she will rise to the top in the Democratic primary, but as of this moment she is not the ideal matchup against Trump. A white male is.

What does Biden have going for him?  Most important, he is the best known. 

Biden has a kind of Blood Type-O quality to him, a universal donor. He is educated, but not Ivy League. He is from urban Delaware but has Scranton roots. He has been powerful for four decades, but has working class background. He is acceptable to secular people but is a practicing Catholic. He is modern, but has the traditional values of ethnic Catholics.

At this moment, Democrats are happy enough with Biden, but in a long campaign other candidates will get exposure and Biden is under steady attack within the activist groups most likely to influence a party nomination, especially in caucus states. Progressive voters are busy within Facebook groups criticizing Biden, comparing him unfavorably to Sanders, and saying they will never support Biden. 

That is a consideration for voters considering "electability."

Democrats say they want a black woman, but the general electorate is different. Trump has the support of a majority of men, and a solid majority of white men. That is a second consideration regarding electability.

The most important factor on electability will not be easily measurable other than by the size and excitement of crowds. It will not be demographic markers nor will it be policy.

It will be charisma. Clint Eastwood and Don Knotts are both white males. But they project different vibes.

Trump is a showman and a competitor. Voters find him interesting.  His strongest opponent will be interesting, and he or she will project that they know what to do in a fight with Trump.

Harris's slogan
"Fight" was in the slogan for Hillary, "Fighting for Us."  It did not ring true for her. She came across like a serious policy student, not a fighter. He bullied her and she didn't stop him

But candidates in 2020 understand the drama that is unfolding. Note the photo at the top of the page, taken from Harris's announcement speech. "Fearless." 

She is trying to project that she knows what to do in a fight.





6 comments:

Rick Millward said...

Sen. Harris is a serious candidate for sure, however her short tenure and lack of a signature issue, other than a laudable focus on protections for minorities and women, may mean she will be more effective in a cabinet post or remaining in the Senate where we will need solid progressives going forward.

This blog continually touts the "tough guy" qualification for political success. While it's part of the Trump charade, and also a Regressive stereotype, it's not something I generally associate with Progressives. Successful Democrats are generally pretty metro, which doesn't mean they are weak; the strength is there if needed. I don't think Clinton was damaged by not going after Trump confrontationally, I think she missed many opportunities to ridicule his posturing and show him up for the hollow bully that he is.

Bullies are not generally successful in life unless they are protected in some way; by social position, wealth or enablers and sycophants. This is why they should never be given power and why the Republicans have made a fatal mistake that will inevitably destroy their party, with collateral damage that will take generations to repair.

Frankly, VP Biden as a "tough guy" is a bit of a stretch. As I've said before I wish him luck going after Trump down in the muck with him. What's that saying about "wrestling with a pig"?

Anonymous said...

I disagree with Rick.

Several factors caused voters to not vote for Hillary. Amongst Democrats, there are still many who think that Hillary was ordained without any consideration for the message Bernie was promoting. It wasn't a fair nomination process, and his supporters still haven't gotten over that theft. Thankfully, the super-delegates aren't in play this time around. Unfortunately, those Bernie supporters still are mad.

The second factor is that Hillary did not campaign effectively in those states she lost. She actually thought she had those states in the bag already. Trump's margin of victory in those states was tiny.

We see something similar in AOC's victory in the primary in 2018. The D incumbent simply did think he needed to campaign to retain his seat. Yes, the demographics of that district have changed, but the incumbent had really done nothing for his district; instead focused on his leadership role in the House. Remember, all politics is local.

I'm reminded of the 2020 challenge by this letter to the editor to Peggy Noonan's op-ed from last week in the WSJ:

Peggy, we had seriousness, calm, aesthetics and a gifted orator in President Obama, so how did the country fare under his eight years?

You give no credit to President Trump for the improved economy, the added jobs, less regulation, better negotiated trade deals, lower taxes and renewed confidence in America’s ability to compete in the world.

President Trump may not be the most tactful and diplomatic president we’ve had, but I will take him any day versus a stagnant economy driven by an eloquent pontificator.

Lucy Artinian

Manhattan Beach, Calif.

Up Close: Road to the White House said...

The economy rebounded sharply under Obama. I know. I lived it. I was a financial advisor.

Home values were restored, the stock market recovered, unemployment fell from 9.5% to 4.2%.

Trump called this “carnage.” Two months after inauguration he said the economy was great. Unemployment was 4.1%, home prices were still going up, the stock market continued.

I don’t consider Trump a turn-around. I consider it a continuation of a 7-year trend. The improvement unde4 Trump was less than the improvement under Obama for the first 27 months for each of them.

Thanks, Obama!

Peter Sage

Sally said...

If the Democrats run a candidate based on identity, I predict they will lose.

Anonymous said...

It’s time. Whoever wins the nomination should give the VP slot to Kamala with those poll numbers. The nominee will have to call Trump a pig and a bully. Biden’s announcement video labels him a white racist without saying so. Mighty fine people indeed.

Unemployment is actually at a 50 year low, 3.9%. That doesn’t look like collapse, Rick. People don’t care how we got here - voters have the attention span of a 2 year old.

Anonymous said...

LA Times Survey Of Adults With Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Kaiser Family Foundation. “Between 2008 and 2018, premiums for employer-sponsored insurance plans increased 55 percent, twice as fast as workers’ earnings (26 percent). In addition, workers are finding themselves on the hook for bigger deductibles before their insurance will kick in. Over the same time period (2008-2018), the average health insurance deductible for covered workers increased by 212 percent.” Thanks, Obama!

... and Obamacare was Barry’s signature achievement...