TO: New Hampshire democrats & independents
FROM: Massachusetts democratic Super Tuesday voter
RE: your primary decision
DATE: February 2, 2020
Hey New Hampshire presidential primary voters! There seems to be one thing almost all democratic primary voter agree on. That is we need to nominate the candidate that is most likely to defeat Donald Trump. If you agree with me on this, please consider the following:
The key to retaking the presidency lies in winning in the Midwestern states we lost on the last election. A point on which there is also wide agreement. Most notably those states are Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. I’d add Ohio to that list. But, let’s not quibble. So, the simple question is which candidate has the best shot at returning those states to the democratic column? The answer is also simple. Amy Klobuchar.
As many of you know by now, Senator Klobuchar has won by wide margins all across Minnesota, including in those parts of the state carried by President Trump. Hilary Clinton only narrowly carried Minnesota, as it is a Midwestern state that has an electorate with many characteristics similar to those of the key states Clinton lost.
But drill down and take a look at the key group of voters needed to retake those states. Those voters are suburban republican women. Not long ago I attended a fundraising event for Michigan Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin. She is one of those newly elected democratic women with a national security background, CIA, who won a very close election in 2018, turning a formerly solid red district to blue. There were a number of elements to her success. But what she stressed most was her ability to capture the votes of just enough republican women to win with 50.6% of the vote. That’s what we need to do in the coming presidential election. Klobuchar has the strongest record of successful bipartisan legislation in the Senate. That likely to appeal to Republican women. Who better to win their votes than Klobuchar, a woman who has done it before?
But what about Buttigieg? He has run a brilliant campaign. He is an attractive candidate who claims a similar ability to win Midwestern votes. However, drill down again and look at the evidence. Buttigieg is the Mayor of a college town that has elected only democrats since 1972. Winning in South Bend demonstrates nothing about national elect-ability. But Buttigieg did run statewide in Indiana for Treasurer in 2010. He got a whopping 37.5 % of the vote. What is demonstrated is that in his home Midwestern state he has little vote getting ability. Conservative as Indiana may be, it has elected Joe Donnelley, Evan Bayh, and other democrats to the Senate. Were Buttigieg to become our nominee he will almost certainly fail to carry his home state. He actually has little record to campaign on as Mayor of South Bend. He will likely have great difficulty winning other Midwestern states as well.
So here is my plea, as a Massachusetts Super Tuesday voter. Please send me Amy Klobuchar! Yes, I know we also have a strong woman Senator from Massachusetts. And, I love Elizabeth Warren. But I go back to the elect-ability consideration. Warren has not demonstrated ability to win votes across party lines. Though she defeated a republican incumbent, we are possibly the bluest state in the country. And she fared poorly in those conservative areas of the state that more likely mirror the parts of the Midwest we need to win. It’s in your hands now.
doubleman says
This seems like an odd jump.
Drilling down into Wisconsin and you find that 88,000 black voters who voted in 2012 stayed home in 2016 and the main reason cited was “unhappy with choice of candidates or issues” in surveys. Trump won Wisconsin by about 23,000 votes.
It seems like a candidate and campaign that can bring out those voters would be well positioned to win without needing to attract voters who are registered as Republican. Klobuchar averages 0% of black voters in national polling. Pete is under 5%. The campaign that wins over Republican women probably isn’t going to do well with some large groups of voters who stayed home last time.
Trying to win a general with candidates who do best with older, wealthier, and whiter groups seems like not the best move for running against a Republican.
Also, I know it’s her midwest pitch, but Minnesota has performed quite differently than other midwest states. It has voted blue for President every time going back to 1972. Obama won handily twice. Winning there may mean an ability to win in PA. It might not.
jack says
Your point is well taken. However, there are no candidates running now that have the ability to drive increased turnout among African American voters. Thank includes Warren, Sanders, and Biden. Biden is the best example of the value of polling. Sure, he currently wins hands down among African American primary voters, as Clinton did. But, just as with Clinton, Biden will not likely drive African American turnout enough to win. To date, there is no reason to think either Warren or Sanders will do any better driving turnout with this group. That could change. It also could change for Klobuchar. I expect the choice of a Vice Presidential nominee to be heavily influenced by this reality, no matter who the nominee turns out to be.
doubleman says
Sanders does drive (at least in polling so far) younger African American turnout, and younger voters of color saw the steepest decline from 2012 to 2016. You’re exactly right about Biden, he wins in polling, but I think his support would be like Clinton’s and not enough to drive people out. You need a candidate and campaign that gives people something to vote for and gets them out. I think that could be Sanders, but it might not be. I have a hard time believing that Klobuchar could be that person given her campaign priorities (we can’t have nice things), her messaging (“let’s see how your hair fares in a blizzard, Mr President”), and her record (not great when your home state NAACP asks you to suspend your campaign over your record as prosecutor).
Everyone seems to think this helps but historically the VP pick has little to no electoral advantage. Maybe Stacey Abrams could change that dynamic. Many think that someone like Kamala Harris could, but if she could, shouldn’t she have polled better than 5-8% among African Americans and also outpolled Andrew Yang in her home state?
Here’s the current state of polling as of today.
Black Democratic voters, in last pre-Iowa Quinnipiac poll
Biden – 49%
Sanders – 17%
Bloomberg – 7%
Black voters, in post-Iowa poll
Biden – 27%
Sanders – 19%
Bloomberg – 22%
Klobuchar is still at 0%.
SomervilleTom says
1. Was Ms. Warren not mentioned in any of those polls?
2. I’d like to see historical turnout data for urban precincts in MI, WI, and PA. I am under the distinct impression that it was historically high in 2008, a bit lower in 2012, and back to its long-term average in 2016.
jconway says
Lower black turnout is as much of a factor in those blue wall-red gain states as much as the blue collar whites defecting to Trump. A recent Times profile of Akron demonstrates this. Blacks stayed home or voted for Stein while whites took a chance on Trump. Convincing both groups to show up for the Democrat will require a very empathetic and sophisticated GOTV strategy. One the recent results in IA lead me to think we have not yet developed and may not develop in time.
SomervilleTom says
@lower black turnout:
Of course it is, absolutely, Lower in comparison to what benchmark, though? It is certainly true that black turnout was dramatically lower in 2016 than it was in 2008 and 2012.
I’d like to know how many Milwaukee County voters turned out in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, and 1980. I ask that because I’m dubious that Barack Obama needed to do a lot of GOTV to spur his outpouring of Milwaukee County support.
That’s why I’d like to know how 2016 compared to the longer term trend.
doubleman says
She was, she is under 10% along with the remaining candidates.
SomervilleTom says
According to today’s 538 New Hampshire update, Elizabeth Warren is forecast to get 14% of New Hampshire compared to Joe Biden’s 13%.
It looks to me as though Bernie Sanders has the lead, Pete Buttigieg next, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar vying for third, and Joe Biden in fourth place.
Assuming there is no Iowa-style meltdown in NH tomorrow evening, we’ll all know the actual results by Wednesday morning.
jconway says
MN nearly went for Trump last cycle and it was the only competitive state to lose Democratic incumbents in 2018. It’s morphing into Western Wisconsin. The old school iron miners and farm hands who remember FDR are dying out and being supplanted by people who grew up under Reagan and fetishize rural cultural issues. A lot of Obama-Trump voters split their tickets between Klobuchar for Senate. Walz for Governor, and the GOP for Congress and state legislative seats. Her bigger issue is lack of a core theme or message beyond electability.
jconway says
I was originally turned off by the cornball jokes and some of the stories from her staffers (which I was aware of before they broke, confirming it’s a real thing), but have been watching her transform into a competent and capable candidate since her interview with the New York Times. She’d make a solid president on day 1. I cannot say that about some of the other front runners.
Warren too wedded to her plans, Biden too old and uncertain, Buttigieg too young and uncertain, and it will be a Yuge adjustment for Bernie to go from pissing outside the tent to pissing inside as LBJ once put it. Klobuchar is progressive enough while also being pragmatic and experienced without being too old. I hope she goes farther than predicted.
Christopher says
Are you saying Warren is inflexible? I don’t get the my way or the highway vibe from her.
jconway says
Oh the opposite, I think she was crucified for her flexibility when she modified her big health care plan to be more incrementalist. The centrists still thought it was too ambitious while the progressives thought Bernie’s was more “authentic”. She really has been in a tough spot where she is damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t. Pete and Bernie never costed their plans, but the media and her opponents forced her into costing hers which made it unpopular. Something that was survivable if she were already President and trying to pass the legislation through, but not survivable as a candidate. She campaigned in prose, not poetry, and that is part of the reason she won’t win. Plans don’t win elections, people do.*
*Gender dynamics play the other big role sad to say.
Christopher says
I interpreted “Warren [is] too wedded to her plans,” as not being willing to entertain other means of accomplishing her desired ends.
jconway says
Maybe wasn’t willing to entertain other ways to sell her ideas? I definitely think she would’ve been more flexible on single payer than Bernie. Which is smart governance but poor politics unfortunately.
SomervilleTom says
No candidate can tell the truth, be authentic, and be elected.
That is the result of our media, MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post included (as well as the Boston Globe, of course).
That, in turn, is the result of a lazy and ignorant electorate who refuse to confront actual reality and face actual facts.
Sigh.
bob-gardner says
The fact that she finished a weak fourth in Iowa, a neighboring state, gives this whole argument an air of unreality. Are we supposed to excuse her weak campaign positions because her weak performance in Iowa, or is it the other way around?
doubleman says
Yes, the candidates staking their entire campaigns on electability (Biden, Klobuchar) have some splainin to do.
jconway says
So does the candidate who is supposed to expand the electorate to all of these independents and non-voters and did worse with both in 2020 than he did in 2016. Far lower turnout. I am not saying any of our candidates are bad, but I think we can’t throw around electability with any certainty until after the election. If Bernie loses to Buttigieg in NH, its a big problem. Not just for him but for the party. I would rather Bernie sow up the early states than give Pete, Biden, Warren, and Klobuchar an excuse to hang on to Super Tuesday.
doubleman says
I think there are many electability concerns about Bernie, but it is not the raison d’etre of the campaign, like it is for Biden and Klobuchar. And, of course, they did nothing to expand turnout in Iowa. Bernie promises a lot on this turnout theme and yes, so far he has underperformed in terms of bringing out an overwhelming wave. He appears to be the only one with any traction at all bringing out these voters, though.
Turnout in Iowa was largely down among older voters this year. The share of younger voters this year was higher than it was in the record 2008 caucuses – and about half went for Bernie. Bernie also blew away everyone with (albeit small number in Iowa) voters of color.
I agree generally on electability calculus, but when you’re coming in distant 4ths and 5ths, it’s hard to say you are most electable.
With respect to Biden, however, there is another problem that I don’t think can be downplayed. He appears to have no significant ground game in Iowa and NH. Maybe it’s not needed to ultimately win, but it seems like both strategic and tactical weakness that is concerning.
jconway says
In light of the results it does seem overall turnout is improving compared to IA and NH 2016. I still see a narrow win in a state Bernie won 60% of the vote in two years ago. Amy and Pete support combined outvote Bernie 2-1. The Amy surge may have actually kept Pete from beating Bernie. I do not doubt Bernie is well primed to win a plurality on the first ballot at the convention, I do worry what happens after he falls short of a majority. Hopefully he either expands his coalition or his opposition consolidated behind one candidate.
doubleman says
Also wonder what happens if the media appropriately called Bernie the highest vote getter in Iowa. Pete rode 72 hours of coverage of being the Iowa “winner.” Also curious to see what happens going forward when the major media coverage could likely be like this blurb from Reuters – “Pete Buttigieg finishes second in New Hampshire primary, Amy Klobuchar third.”
We shall see what happens in states where not everyone is white. Funny that the story has been that Bernie only has white male supporters, and exit polls show that where Bernie is weakest is among older, richer, whiter people. So, yeah, maybe he needs to expand the coalition to include those folks – but maybe we should see if the other candidates can get really any younger, more diverse, working class voters.
Christopher says
The media DID call Bernie the highest vote getter in Iowa, which is how you know that to be true since I assume you did not count the votes yourself. OTOH, Pete did come out of IA with more delegates (by all of two which will hardly matter come convention), so it is perfectly reasonable to call him and Sanders co-frontrunners. Is there something wrong with the Reuters quote? It’s accurate.
doubleman says
Winning the first two states and now leading in national polling sounds like only one front-runner to me.
And that’s despite very negative media coverage.
It’s funny that now the media has to try and boost two moderates instead of one.
Watch the coverage – you’re going to see 10X the questioning of whether Bernie can expand his coalition (and erasing his success among women, POC, and working class voters) than whether Pete or Amy can expand theirs beyond middle-aged and older well-off white folks.
jack says
I agree, Sanders is the clear front-runner. And, based on his remarks, I see him as appropriately trying to expand his appeal. Still, he scares the shit out of a lot of the political establishment. Having a “Sanders opposition” splintered among 2, 3, 4, ,,,,, candidates helps Sanders. As I have posted earlier, I favor Klobuchar. However, I do see she has an extremely narrow path to the nomination. But, all of the other non-Sanders candidates have serious electoral flaws. All that said, I do like Sanders. and under at least one foreseeable`scenario would support him in the primary. That scenario is one in which Bloomberg becomes the anti-Sanders candidate. At the moment, this seems like a very plausible scenario. No matter what happens in NV or SC, none of the other candidates have the money Bloomberg does. His unlimited ability to spend may allow him to overtake a splintered field. Ironically, it may be Bloomberg’s entry into the debates that trips him up. If one candidate, hopefully Klobuchar, can attack him and win, he/she may emerge above the rest of the field non-Sanders field.
doubleman says
I think an underdiscussed thing is that many Dem voters are happy with lots of candidates – polling shows this. This may have been part of why turnout in Iowa was not great. Why go out for an entire evening when you’d be happy with anyone? NH makes it easier to come out and turnout was way up, but also split among candidates.
I agree with a lot about Amy. Of all the Dems, there isn’t a clear, strong angle for the GOP to go after. Bernie has socialism/too left, Buttigieg has zero experience, Biden has corruption/gaffes, Warren has trustworthiness/too left. Amy doesn’t have that, but she also doesn’t have that thing that really inspires supporters.
As far as Bloomberg, yes, maybe being in the debates is good. Everyone (except Pete, I suspect) will go after him for buying his way in, and given his recent press interactions, he ain’t well-practiced for responding.
Christopher says
Let’s stay reality based. He is at best a co-winner of Iowa. Polls and maybe even fundraising may have been fine metrics before any votes were cast, but now we are getting results. Delegates determine the nomination so whoever leads in that count is by definition the frontrunner. At the moment that is Pete Buttigieg albeit by just one or two. I for one question Sanders’ ability to expand his coalition more than I do for Pete and Amy too.
centralmassdad says
How can he be the only front runner if he doesn’t even have the most delegates yet?
It is becoming increasingly clear that Bernie Voters will not turn out for one of the moderates if a moderate is the nominee; they’re already lapping up conspiracy theories that, if they aren’t circulated by Russian intelligence or the Trump campaign, might as well be. That’s a problem if, as I suspect, it turns out that Dem primary voters aren’t as far-left as Bernie Voters hope– then we get 2016 again.
I suppose that leaves the question of whether Senator Sanders can appeal to the moderate voter, which remains open. It seems to me that the more the campaign wallows in the sort of denunciations that followed Iowa, the more difficult this will be.
doubleman says
He’s the most well-liked candidate, based on favorability ratings of all Dem candidates among Democrats. He runs around 75 positive, 20 negative.
Around 90% of Dem supporters of other candidates say they will vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what.
Shouldn’t a question be whether any other candidate can get ANY of the left, either in the primary or in the general?
centralmassdad says
I’m not sure that those kinds of surveys really answer the question, now that votes are being cast. I mean, I would answer a favorability question positively– I like and respect the guy, but I would still be a hard no on voting for him.
If this campaign generates the same “Denounce the Mensheviks” tone that 2016, I won’t have any confidence that any candidate can draw from both pools of voters in sufficient numbers. If the proportional system that the Dems use generates another trench-warfare slog to the convention, it would be bad.
centralmassdad says
I would add that if Sen. Sanders starts expanding from his 2016 voter base in SC and NV, then that would be evidence of what you suggest. He has the tactical advantage in that the “moderate” vote is split among three candidates (or more?), whereas with the fading of Warren he is alone in his lane.
jack says
We know from recent history that at very least there will be a small, but potentially game changing, group of Sanders supporters who will not vote for any other democrat, regardless of what Sanders may say or want. Jill Stein voters alone may have cost us Michigan in 2016. Ralph Nader voters cost us Florida in 2000, electing George Bush. Conversely, I expect a small segment of democratic voters or democratic leaning independents, won’t vote for Sanders. The campaigns and DNC need to plan for this in either direction.
SomervilleTom says
Amy Klobuchar is the clear winner in NH.
She came out of nowhere to blow away Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren by a landslide. She and Pete Buttigieg split the “centrist” vote that Joe Biden so desperately seeks (and will not get).
I understand that Bernie Sanders got the most votes. He didn’t come close to gaining a majority of the votes cast.
As I see it, the progressive/leftist candidates were Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren. They got a total of 103,101 votes. The centrist/moderate candidates were Mr. Buttigieg, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Biden. They got a total of 155,456.
To me, the takeaway from NH is:
Centrist/Moderate: 155,456/52.6%
Progressive/Leftist: 103,101/34.9%
Everybody else: 36,943 / 12.5%
If the progressive candidates are able to get only about one in three Democratic primary voters, then either of those (Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren) will be CREAMED in the general election in November.
The New Hampshire primary results send a very clear message about Joe Biden, whether or not the campaign hears it.
I think all three centrist/moderate candidates are vulnerable to Mike Bloomberg. We saw easily Joe Biden ridiculed the experience of Pete Buttigieg — imagine what Mike Bloomberg, mayor of New York City from 2002 to 2013, will do.
I think Mike Bloomberg will be our nominee, and I think he’ll win in November. I’m not saying I like this outcome, I’m just saying that this is what reality looks like to me. My big question is whether he’ll be able to buy or inspire enough down-ballot support to retake the Senate and hang onto the House.
doubleman says
I’m old enough to remember a guy who came in second in Iowa and then won NH with a third of the vote in a crowded primary field.
You might remember his name.
It’s Donald Trump.
centralmassdad says
The difference is that the GOP primaries are winner-take-all, and so one or two wins early can easily become a rout. The Dem primaries are instead structured to be more… well, democratic, but that also makes them bitter, vicious, and protracted. Dems never get the late state primary that turns into a unifying victory lap for the nominee.
doubleman says
Yes, but in the same way, a candidate could be winning early and not have a majority of votes in states and still win the primary and the general election. An insurmountable lead and reaching a majority of pledged delegates is harder for Dems. Getting a clear plurality could absolutely happen this year for a candidate. (And if the plurality winner is not the ultimate nominee, the Party is toast and Trump will walk to reelection).
Bernie could be at 25-30% in a lot of states, especially on Super Tuesday, and win a lot while Biden, Amy, Pete, and Bloomberg are going after more moderate voters.
And then there is the assumption that if there is a consensus “moderate” pick they will get the bulk of the other candidates previous supporters. There was no consolidated anti-Trump vote that went to one candidate in 2016. People have weirder preferences than pundits admit – kinda like how the second choice for a lot of Biden folks is Sanders and not a more moderate candidate.
SomervilleTom says
I’m not talking about just Iowa and NH. The GOP field was very crowded at this time in 2016.
I’m talking about how the race shapes up throughout the season.
Donald Trump routed the GOP field by tapping an enormous base of deplorable ignorant, racist, and sexist bigots who were eager to make one of their own their nominee.
The Democrats have no analogous untapped reservoir to draw on.
centralmassdad says
I agree that Biden and Warren are most likely cooked.
Biden ridiculed Mayor Pete, and then Mayor Pete kicked his ass, so I’m not sure on how that plays either.
I’m not ready to say that Bloomberg is either a good candidate, or “the end of democracy.” The fact that he can make Trump feel like a pipsqueak on something that is so dear to Trump’s perpetually sagging ego is quite tempting, to say the least. But he hasn’t even been on a ballot or appeared in a debate yet– all we really have are his Obama-liked-me ads (which are pretty good ads!). But he could just wind up being another moderate in an already crowded moderate field.
SomervilleTom says
Joe Biden had already lost NH when he ran that ad, it’s a national ad aimed at primaries further down the road. It looks to me as though the ad is itself a response to Mr. Buttigieg’s strength in IA and NH.
I agree with you that Mr. Bloomberg is not a “good” candidate — he won at least one NYC election as a GOP candidate. I also agree with you that his nomination and/or election would not be “the end of democracy”.
Mr. Bloomberg is just another moderate with FIFTY FIVE BILLION dollars in the bank and the experience of running America’s largest city for more than a decade. He’s already spent more than $135M, and we just finished the first actual primary (where he didn’t even compete). I think it’s a mistake to count out anybody with that kind of money to spend on a campaign.
I think he has stronger creds in mainstream America than any of the other candidates, and I think that strength will make or break his campaign. I also think that the huge size of his wallet in comparison to Mr. Trump will be an ENORMOUS psychological advantage, if nothing else than because Mr. Trump is SO insecure about his utter failure as a businessman.