Decision Sanders

Time to decide.

It doesn't look like anyone's going to drop out of the race between now and Super Tuesday. The next debate in on March 15. We won't have reasonably complete South Carolina results until March 1 or March 2, and in any case, I really don't care in the least what voters in a completely safe GOP stronghold think about the nominees, and the polls give us a rough idea of who they favor already. 

I am down to Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

Why Not The Other Democratic Candidates?

* Mike Bloomberg is horrible and polls poorly head to head via Trump compared to the rest of the field in most polls. 

* Joe Biden is a bad campaigner and not great on policy and has a history of being a late adopter of good new ideas. 

* Pete Buttigieg is a great guy but his political experience is limited to being a Mayor of a medium sized city and the Presidency shouldn't be an entry level job. He also doesn't have a national network of supports that can be mobilized in time to be viable.

* Tom Steyer has never held public office either even though he also seems to be a decent guy. He has also garnered little primary support despite spending tens of millions of dollars on his own campaign.

* Klobuchar is such a non-great campaigner on a national stage that she uses debate time to assure people that she's not boring, and has support overwhelmingly concentrated in Minnesota; she also doesn't poll well head to head v. Trump and is struggling to be viable in the Democratic nomination. She is more conservative than I would like but not disqualifyingly so.

* Gabbard can't register at 2% in any of the first three states, has a history of anti-LGBT policies, waffled on impeachment when she didn't need to, and won't do any better in SC.

I will vote for any candidate that wins the nomination, even Bloomberg or Biden. My number one goal is to beat Donald Trump. But, I'd prefer a President who would do a better job if that can be done without grave sacrifices to the odds of betting Donald Trump.

Analysis

The Case For Warren

I would prefer Elizabeth Warren to Bernie Sanders as a President. Her views and mode of analysis of those views are closer to mine, and I think that she is a more effective politician in the legislative process than Sanders, and is more suited to be in an executive branch position and would get more of her agenda adopted, all other things being equal.

I also think that Warren is the best candidate to unite the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic base from 2016, many of whom were highly motivated to elect the first female President of the United States, and the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic base from 2016, as an anti-corporate political figure who is the most liberal U.S. Senator in Congress, despite her background in law and economics.

Warren has the virtue of being eight years younger than Bernie Sanders, three years younger than Trump, and having about a ten and five year longer life expectancy than each of them respectively, because women live longer on average. Bernie Sanders is very old, he's had a heart attack on the campaign trail, and the odds of him dying or suffering a disabling health incident, before finishing his first term in office and then being re-elected and finishing his second term in office, are only on the order of 50% actuarially. If he doesn't run for re-election in light of his health, Democrats lose the benefit of incumbency in 2024, although the demographics and religious views of the United States continue to shift in their favor.

Warren consistently beats Trump in national polling, although only by a thinner margin than Sanders, although that could change as the public gets to know her, or Sanders, better. She also does more poorly than Sanders in head to head polls against Trump in swing states. She is less of a known quantity, so she has more room to grow in the polls if she wins the nomination. She has been fairly effective in her debate performance and could eat Trump for lunch in a debate.

Warren has been running third and fourth in the Democratic nomination polling and early state results. She is fourth in delegates so far (8% of the total). She came in fourth place in Nevada. She came in fourth place in New Hampshire. She came in third place in Iowa. She was recently in third place in cash on hand (above even Bloomberg) and in third place in individual donations, although she is in fourth place in total funds raised including self-funding and SuperPAC donations.

In no state for which Democratic nomination polling in early states is available or voting has been held is Warren in any better than third place, except in Massachusetts, her home state, where she is a close second to Sanders, followed by Buttigieg, Biden and Bloomberg in that order. 

Apart from Massachusetts, Minnesota, Iowa and Texas, she's in 4th place or worse. This simply isn't good enough in what is ultimately a winner take all race. There is no likely scenario in which she can get a majority of the delegates in the first round. There is no likely scenario in which she can get even a plurality of the delegates in the first round.

Warren is polling in fourth place in California and North Carolina, and in third place in Texas, where she worked for many years as a law professor. Warren is polling in 6th place in the only recent Virginia poll, where Sanders and Bloomberg are tied and Biden is a close third, followed by much weaker showings for Buttigieg (4th) and Klobuchar (5th). Warren in polling in third place in Minnesota behind Klobuchar (1st) and Sanders (2nd), Biden is in 4th place, Buttigieg is in 5th place, and Bloomberg is in 6th place. Warren is tied for third place in Michigan behind Sanders in first place and Biden well behind him in second place. In Florida, Warren is polling in 6th place, Bloomberg has a strong lead, followed by Biden, and then Sanders. In Georgia, Warren is in 5th place, where Biden has a huge lead, Sanders and Bloomberg are tied for second place, and Buttigieg is in 4th place. In Maryland, Warren is in 5th place, Sanders is first, Biden is second, Bloomberg is third, Buttigieg is fourth.

Also, state primaries and caucuses that are proportionate still have cutoffs, so her delegate count when she's polling at the percentages that she is, is likely to be a smaller percentage than her polling percentage, while top candidates in polling, like Sanders and Biden are likely to overperform in delegates relative to their polling.

It wouldn't be terribly surprising if Warren dropped out of the race before it got to the national convention, even though Steyer, Gabbard and Klobuchar are all probably weaker than she is and are even more likely to drop out. Klobuchar and Gabbard dropping out would ten to help Warren in the case of people looking for a female candidate.

The Case For Sanders

Sanders is the clear front runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination. He was first in the popular vote and a close second in the race for delegates in Iowa. He won in New Hampshire and Nevada. He has been awarded 45% of the delegates so far.  His betting odds are the strongest. He has a strong national campaign organization. He is first in individual donations and was recently first in cash on hand. He consistently draws huge crowds for rallies. He's won over Latino and union support. He is polling a strong second place to Biden in South Carolina (Bloomberg is not the ballot) and far ahead of third place Steyer (+10.0 percentage points) and fourth place Warren. Sanders leads polling in California (+11.5 percentage points), Texas (+1.6) and North Carolina (+1.5), all of which vote on Super Tuesday, and in all of those races, Biden is polling in second place.

Bloomberg is polling in third place in California, in fourth place in Texas, and in third place in North Carolina, despite the betting odds that place him far ahead of Biden (in second place), something that may not be truthworthy because betting odds can be manipulated with money with Bloomberg has to burn.

Many Democrats on the left of the party, think he would have won in 2016 if he had been nominated instead of Hillary Clinton, whom the Democratic National Convention and Superdelegates did their best to undermine, despite the fact that she lacked charisma and was seen as a compromise corporatist-centrist Democrat. In this narrative, her candidacy dampened Democratic turnout and enthusiasm, which led to a narrow Trump win in some key swing states, despite winning the popular vote by 3 million votes.

Sanders supporters are mostly likely to cease to work hard in the general election or even turn out if he isn't running. His political organization is not easily transferrable to another nominee.

The Democratic establishment has worked hard to get in the way of the Sanders campaign (most recently by letting Bloomberg into the race and endorsing him with big dollar contributions), and the mainstream media has been biased against Sanders who has persevered nonetheless.

One way Sanders could win the nomination would be with a majority of delegates on the first ballot, in which Superdelegates do not vote and everyone is bound to their initial pledged candidate (unless that candidate has withdrawn).

It isn't clear if Sanders will get a majority, or a plurality of the delegates. If he does not get a majority, it will not be because Warren or Buttigieg or Steyer or Klobuchar or Gabbard got more delegates than he did. 

Either Bloomberg or Biden could conceivably get more delegates than Sanders, but Biden currently seems much better positioned to do that than Bloomberg whose popularity sours every time he gets up on a debate stage where the public can be reminded of his horrible record and who isn't polling all that well already.

While I could see Biden potentially getting slightly more delegates than Sanders, although this seems unlikely, there is no way that Biden gets a majority of the first round vote. Biden's showings so far of second place in Nevada, fourth place in Iowa, and fifth place in New Hampshire are unimpressive, even though Biden has a good shot of winning in South Carolina.

Likewise, Bloomberg couldn't win a plurality either. The only state where Bloomberg is polling in first place is Florida.

So, one scenario is a first round win for Sanders, and the other scenario is a brokered convention in which delegates aren't bound to their initial candidate and superdelegates can vote.

Realistically, the only way that Elizabeth Warren will become the nominee is in a brokered convention as a compromise between Sanders supporters and delegates who do not want Sanders to be the nominee. But, in a brokered convention, Sanders, Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, or Bloomberg could also become the nominee. Steyer and Gabbard have no hope in a brokered convention.

Based upon the debate performances we've seen in Nevada and South Carolina, I do not think that Bloomberg would win in a brokered convention. All of the real Democrats in the race, who will collectively have many delegates, rally against him, and he won't even be among the top two candidates in delegates won in all likelihood. Money can only buy so much.

If Sanders gets a plurality, which seems most likely by far, who would a brokered convention choose? It might choose Sanders, Biden,  Warren, Buttigieg or Klobuchar.

But, Klobuchar, if she is even still in the race by then, seems unlikely to be preferred over Warren, even by "not Sanders" factions. She just won't have delivered enough in the campaign, even though she is well enough qualified and could be uniting as a woman. 

I think that both Sanders and Warren supporters would prefer the other's candidate to Klobuchar. 

I think that a shift of Klobuchar and/or Buttigieg supporters to Biden is more likely than a shift of Biden supporters (many of whom are black or older moderate Democrats) to either of them.

Buttigieg likewise, has no realistic shot at majority, let alone a plurality of delegates. He's consistently in fourth place or worse, despite top two showings in Iowa and New Hampshire and a third place showing in Nevada.

Ultimately, a vote for Warren merely keeps her in the running as a viable brokered convention compromise in which the outcome is far from certain, and in which a Sanders win is probably more likely than a Warren win in subsequent rounds.

A vote for Sanders increases the odds that there won't be a second round or a brokered convention, and it increases the odds that if there is a brokered convention, that his plurality will be strong enough to become a majority with delegates for candidates who are no longer viable or in the running. If Sanders gets a plurality with a strong lead over any other Democratic candidate and comes close to a majority, it is hard to see the Democratic National Convention backing anyone else, and would likely blow up in the Democrats' face with mass rank and file rebellion if they tried. Someone else could be a viable nominee in a brokered convention only if Sanders plurality was thin.

Sanders is strong than he seems because he isn't just a "far left" candidate. He has focused on economic issues salient to the working class and middle class of all races, the white portion of which has moved in droves from the Democratic party to Trump's GOP.  Sanders and Warren are Democrats addressing the same impulses of working class and middle class stagnation and disillusionment that drove Trump to power, in a more constructive way. The other candidates don't really acknowledge this dire concern so strongly.

Sanders has a charisma that has built a large loyal base, and is perceived as honest and not bought. Some never Trump voters may prefer Sanders because however ambitious his policy agenda, Sanders won't have the votes in Congress to enact in fully in all likelihood.

Sanders is likely to maximize turnout for the Democratic base, and higher turnout is most likely to lead to Democratic coat tails in House and Senate races. If Sanders can win the Presidency, there is a good chance that Democrats can hold the House and flip the Senate as well. None of the other Democratic candidates, with the possible exceptions of Buttigieg or Warren if they ran truly dynamic campaigns significantly exceeding expectations to date, are likely to increase Democratic turnout or commitment, or to have coat tails to the same degree. Biden and Bloomberg would definitely depress Democratic base turnout. Klobuchar would be par for the course turnout or worse. Warren would be a much more plausible faction uniter than Buttigieg, in the face of a committed "not Sanders" faction, particularly if Sanders and Warren combined are close to 50%.

The most likely brokered convention possibility would be a plurality first round vote for Sanders, a close run up for Biden, with a smattering of delegates spread among Buttigieg, Warren, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg, far behind the two front runners, in which case the second round vote would be to see whether Sanders or Biden could get more delegates from Superdelegates and those won by Buttigieg, Warren, Klobuchar and Bloomberg. Biden might get votes from Klobuchar and Bloomberg supporters and split Buttigieg, while Sanders might get some Buttigieg supporter and most of the Warren supporters. Superdelegates would be split by Biden and Sanders, but might give Biden an edge.

But, ultimately, the bottom line is that I am leaning pretty strongly in favor of Sanders at this point, even though I would prefer Warren as an actual President.