The left-leaning NYT columnist Jamelle Bouie insists that it is too early to determine which of the Democratic candidates is the most “electable,” given that “electability” is not simply a function of identity and demographics. For once, I agree with him. We need to see these people on stage together, and on the stump, for several months before we make that decision.
Here is where I stand today:
- I’m a realo. I’m not going to support any fundi candidates. As a result, I’m comfortable with Biden, but I’m willing to consider younger and more vibrant alternatives.
- I’m completely put off by Bernie’s warmed-over seventies neo-Marxism. Even constrained by the system, he would make a terrible president, particularly in foreign affairs.
- Warren would be a much better “revolutionary” choice, as she is more driven by data than ideology, but she has to elbow Bernie out of her lane first. Her only option, as I see it, is to outflank him on the left, which will be a tough task. More on that in the coming weeks.
- Harris has a lot going for her, and her history suggests that she is a realo who knows how to wield a knife–a useful skill in politics. She can’t get the nomination unless she figures out exactly what she stands for and how she can appeal to white people who aren’t extremely liberal. Right now, I want to see it, but I don’t.
- Booker could win as the last man standing–the one choice that is minimally tolerable to everyone, including me. That appears to be his only hope.
- Beto hasn’t shown me that he’s qualified for the job.
- Mayor Pete is minimally qualified. He has to prove that he is more than a gay novelty during the debates. Speaking Norwegian doesn’t win you any friends in Oklahoma.
- Klobuchar is acceptable to me from an ideological perspective, but, without a charisma transplant, she looks like a left-wing version of Tim Pawlenty.
- The other candidates don’t merit any discussion at this point.