- Compared to his GOP rivals, his name recognition was off the charts. Trump didn't need to build a brand; thanks to his television career and his general tabloid-coverage-attracting gaucherie, he was well-known even before he began his run
- Trump sharply distinguished himself from his many rivals by carving out an identity as a populist, during a political season during which it was (wrongly) thought that being the Tea Partiest candidate was the key to winning the nomination
- There was a sort of "game theory" aspect (to borrow a phrase from Jonah Goldberg) to the GOP primary season in 2016: there were so many candidates in the field dividing up votes, media coverage, consultant talent, funding and so on, that all that was needed to win a primary and compile delegates was a middling plurality of voters. Trump's advantage here was exacerbated by the fact that he had his populist base largely to himself, while a dozen or more candidates fought over the Tea Party true believers
- Whatever the true size of Trump's personal wealth, it was sufficiently large that he never needed to fear running out of money. His celebrity status was also an important factor in this: Trump's campaign didn't need to spend as much time fund-raising and doing large ad buys because the media covered Donald Trump as news - the media basically publicized the Trump campaign on its own dime.
It seems tolerably clear that Joe Biden checks off most of these boxes. While he probably doesn't have the popular name-recognition quotient that Trump brought to the table, I'd deem him to be the most well-known candidate in the Democratic primary race, with perhaps only Bernie Sanders rivaling him as a household name. Biden also seems to have established an identity, a sort of "Joe Lunch Bucket" approach, that sharply distinguishes him from the overall trend in which virtually all of rivals are moving to the left and competing for the same group of energized progressive voters. I see this as a big advantage for Biden over Sanders: many other Democratic candidates are looking to peel off Sanders supporters. And so Biden may benefit from the same "game theory effect" that Trump did; in fact, there are even more Democrats in the race at this stage than the GOP managed at its peak numbers.
To the best of my knowledge, the only box that Biden doesn't check is Trump-like personal wealth. Lack of campaign funds can be huge. We'll have to see whether Biden can stay in the race financially.
The polls show Biden ahead of his two dozen or so rivals by a country mile. Of course, that could change dramatically. But if recent history is a guide, it probably won't.
I think we're looking at Trump vs. Biden in the fall of 2020.
That wouldn't be the worst outcome. I think he could beat Trump. But it really matters a lot who he picks for a running mate.
ReplyDeleteThe polls mean nothing at this point. You'd get about 90% undecided if everybody told the truth. But we haven't seen all the candidates yet. What is 23? There are untold House members, governors and mayors still assessing their chances, plus several important school board members in Midwestern swing states. And my urologist is showing some interest in the race.
ReplyDeleteTom, your urologist coming into the race could be a game-changer; until now I was sort of leaning toward the woman who scans your groceries at the Publix :-)
DeleteDiBlasio is the latest entrant, and a lot will happen in the next many months.
ReplyDeleteWarren, who knows more about economics and has hands-down the best moral compass on business ethics, was grilled by Judy Woodruff last night about whether she was just "another brainy woman who lectures people."
I'll be interested in how Tom's urologist thinks it will all shake out (and I think that shows remarkable restraint on my part given the dozens of jokes and puns that immediately jump into my head when I think of urology and politics at the same time ...).
Actually, he is a Republican. Back when he could take blood in his office (insurance said, "STOP! Let someone else collect for taking blood"), and I told him I had heard (from her) that his assistant could take blood better, and he hollered at her to come in and stick me, he told her "Mr. Blackburn is a Democrat, so we stick him twice." (Insurance put a stop to letting his assistant stick me. Insurance takes a lot of fun out of my medical socializing.)
DeleteAnyhow, he says he couldn't get the Republican nomination, but "anybody" can get the Democratic nomination, so he may throw his scrub cap into the ring. I said, why not?
Actually, Jill Flipovic(whose other work I don't know) has a fairly convincing piece in today's NYTimes arguing that the slippery idea of "electability" is something Joe Biden doesn't particularly have.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/opinion/joe-biden-president.html
Her point is that the Joe Lunchbuckets of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin -- so beloved by the pundits who talk to each other all day on cable news -- had very little to do with the blue wave of 2018. And look at the odd, "unelectable" women that cast into the House.
She repeats a canard, though, when she writes: "a white male Democrat has not won a majority of American voters since at least the 1970s..." Badly wrong-o. I give you 2000: Gore 50,999,897 vs Bush 50,456,002. Why does everyone wander around with the wrong idea of what happened in our most recent fraudulent election?
If you follow her reasoning, the most "electable" D is probably either Elizabeth Warren or Kamela Harris.
Of course, Trump was never "electable" until he was elected. Which is why I don't pay attention to the experts who talk to each other all day on cable news.