Let’s talk 2020. I need to contemplate the paradise of a Trump-free future for just a little while.
I said back in August that it was too early to talk about the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates… and it’s still too early. However, since everyone with a pulse is starting to announce, it does seems appropriate to discuss some candidates in the context of their possible campaign strategies. While the actual ticket is obviously important, it needs to be able to execute an Electoral College strategy that makes sense.
So, yeah, this is a very long post. Believe it or not, my first draft was WAY longer and this is the edited version.
Setting the Stage
In a previous post, I defined the 2020 Electoral Landscape as I see it, providing a baseline to discuss possible Democratic strategies to elect the next President. (For the moment, I’m just going to ignore the possible impact of a strong third-party candidate since Howard Schultz is already imploding.)
Unfortunately for American democracy, my analysis says that 32 states (plus DC) are pretty much “in the bag” for one party or the other from a 2020 Electoral standpoint. Thus, the strategies herein will concentrate mostly on the 18 states where the outcome is not predetermined.
Because of the way the Electoral College works, the Democratic ticket does NOT need to:
- … overly excite voters in the “Safe D” states. Getting more than 50%+1 of any state’s popular vote is useless.
- … dedicate any resources in the “Safe R” states. If there’s no reasonable path to 50%+1, time and money are best spent elsewhere.
- … win all 18 in-play states. Spreading limited resources too thin would be disastrous.
Bernie Sanders said this week that the campaign was “not only about defeating Donald Trump.” He’s just wrong. That must be the overriding goal and it requires 270 Electoral votes. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.
Despite the name of this blog, I’m largely putting politics aside for this analysis. Given the Republican opponent, the bar for a “better” Democrat is pretty damn low. Democrats need someone who is sane and intelligent with an easy sense of humor and an ability to communicate well. While he or she can’t piss off the Democratic base and will need to raise a massive amount of money, the candidate doesn’t necessarily need to pander to anyone, either. At the moment, though, this isn’t about politics or policy; it’s about numbers.
The Trump Strategy
From a Republican strategy standpoint, my working assumption is more of the same from TrumpLand. Trump did throw conventional wisdom out of the proverbial window in 2016 and it is certainly possible that he could bend reality yet again in 2020. However, I give that possibility a low probability since Trump has shown little inclination to change his basic approach over the past two years. It will be Trump and more Trump from the GOP. The Republican party’s faith in Trump will either propel them to a second Presidential term or it will be their Achilles’ heel. We’ll see.
It is important to note that only two presidents elected since the Great Depression have lost a second bid – Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Regardless of strategy, an incumbent President has a major advantage – even if his name is Donald Trump.
Possible Cornerstone Democratic Strategies
Below are a few possible ways, in no particular order, that the more flexible Democrats can combat a Trump-focused Republican strategy. Since we assume 182 “D” Electoral votes are a given, Democrats need a strategy to get 88 more. While any of these strategies could work under perfect conditions, some of them stand a better chance of success than others. The candidates listed with each strategy are preliminary and are also in no particular order. Some candidates may well be able to execute multiple approaches, but it’s important to focus on one cornerstone strategy rather than just conduct a random walk through the states. See 2016.
The Progressive Left Strategy
Whether or not the “progressive” agenda is a good thing is completely beside the point (although that’ll be a future blog topic). From a numbers perspective, this quite possible Democratic strategy would take a very hard road. Democrats need to give Republicans and Independents a reason to either vote for the Democrat or to at least stay home on election day. While far-left progressives can certainly raise money and fire up that wing of the party, they will also fire up Republicans. This strategy thus provides no obvious advantage in the swing states.
A strong progressive Democrat would win by huge margins in states they were going to win anyway, they’d likely win the popular vote, and they’d lose the Electoral College. Been there; done that; quite literally have the t-shirt. Can we please try to win this time?
Candidates include: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg
The Old White Establishment Male Strategy
This approach would feature a centrist establishment politician that may not inspire anyone but probably doesn’t turn anyone off, either. This strategy may be boring, but it can work. There are two key components. First nail down all of the “Lean D” states, adding 51 Electoral votes. Second, concentrate on just enough of the true “Toss-Up” states to win – with the selection of states dependent on the candidate’s strengths. For example, a combination of Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Iowa provides another 37 Electoral votes – which gives this candidate exactly enough to win.
Candidates include: Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Michael Bennett, John Hickenlooper, Bob Casey, Tim Kaine, Steve Bullock
The Young Turk Strategy
This strategy would largely be an attempt to recreate the 2008 Obama campaign. Unfortunately, that strategy requires a millennial version of Barack Obama. No one has yet to claim that mantle and I don’t yet see anyone that can even come close in political, personal, and policy skills. Furthermore, while millennials may soon be the largest generation in the electorate, it’s unlikely that they will soon have any major impact. They just don’t vote. It’s highly unlikely that this strategy can win enough swing states to win the election.
Candidates include: Beto O’Rourke, Julián Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Kennedy
The Minority Senator Strategy
I don’t really know what to call this strategy since I’m making it up to fit a few candidates that don’t fit elsewhere. While they are each very different people, each is a middle-aged Senator from a “Safe D” state and none of them are white males. These folks are neither progressive enough to fire up that wing nor centrist enough to have much appeal beyond traditional Democrats. While any of these pretty smart politicians could win the primary if they get the right breaks, there’s just not a clear path for any of them to win the election since their appeal in the swing states is minimal. Again, see 2016.
Candidates include: Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker
The Middle America Strategy
Despite the fact that progressives are getting most of the press, Democrats won the 2018 mid-terms by capturing the suburbs and turning the Midwest back their way. Centrists won the day – particularly centrists that appealed to working middle-class Americans. If Democrats can repeat this 2018 strategy in 2020, they can win.
While there are numerous states where this strategy can play, the easiest targets would be the (roughly) Great Lakes states that have traditionally been Democratic. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Iowa add 62 Electoral votes. The ticket can additionally target the 27 Electoral votes in Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia for the win. With the right candidates, the ticket could also target Nevada, Maine, New Hampshire, or Ohio to pad the Electoral margin.
Candidates include: Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, John Delaney, Steve Bullock
The Dixie Strategy
I’m mentioning this only since it’s been proposed by some Democratic pundits. The pitch is that the right Democrat could win the South, including Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Texas. Wow. Good luck with that. This is such a crappy idea that I won’t even bother to run the numbers.
Candidates include: Stacey Abrams, Beto O’Rourke, Julián Castro
The Military Strategy
This strategy highlights the tenuous grasp that Trump has on diplomacy and the usage of the military. A retired U.S. Military Flag Officer would provide an awesome counterpoint (and I’d personally love to see a foreign policy debate between Trump and someone who has actually lived foreign policy). Veterans make up 13 percent of the voting population and enjoy a high voter turnout. In the 2016 presidential election, veterans had a 6% higher turnout than non-veterans and the rate is even higher in several 2020 swing states.
While the Trump administration originally had some high-ranking military players on-board with bipartisan appeal (H.R. McMaster, John Kelly, James Mattis), they’re all gone. There’s really no one left to provide cover. Additionally, the recent declaration of a money grab from military construction projects for a useless wall only adds ammunition to this strategy.
This candidate could lay claim to Virginia, New Mexico, Maine, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Colorado, and Texas to provide the necessary 88 Electoral votes. Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia would also be in play. Additionally, this candidate could inherit the advantages of the Old White Establishment Male Strategy described above.
Candidates include: Bill McRaven, John Allen, James Stavridis, Stanley McChrystal, David Petraeus, Colin Powell
The Dark-Horse Strategy
This is the “fight fire with fire” strategy – featuring a celebrity and/or business personality to take on Trump in his own arena. This is obviously a candidate-specific strategy as each would bring their own positives and negatives. The approach is certainly quite risky and has no common Electoral math to support it. Thus, for my purposes, it’s off the table.
Candidates include: Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, Dwayne Johnson, Mark Cuban, Michael Bloomberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Bob Iger
Supporting Democratic Strategies
While one of the above strategies will likely drive Democrats in 2020, the supporting strategies are quite important as well.
The VP Strategy
Given the Trump dynamic, the Vice Presidential race is even more unimportant than usual. However, while no one will give a second thought to Pence, the Democratic VP nominee could be useful. I suggest that Democrats retreat to “old school” VP selection criteria, in order of importance:
- Be perceived as being qualified to be President.
- Do no harm.
- Balance the top of the ticket by executing a second cornerstone strategy as best as possible from the #2 spot.
- Carry your in-play home state.
Note that Pence is actually a decent choice for Trump. He continues to put Indiana solidly in the “R” column, as a former Governor he is perceived as being a capable executive and politician, and he otherwise stays in the background. WAY in the background. At the other extreme, Palin was a horrible choice for McCain. While she did provide some balance from a youth/gender standpoint, she took the spotlight, she was perceived as incompetent, and Alaska wasn’t in-play.
The Senate Strategy
While the battle to control the Senate in 2020 is separately important, these statewide races have considerable impact on the Presidential race. Not only do 13 of the 18 states that are in-play for the Presidential election also have Senate elections in 2020, a good set of Senate candidates across the board creates an enormous amount of synergy. Even if the Senate candidate loses, a strong Senate campaign can still help the top of the ticket by forcing Republicans to divert resources. This is still very much a work-in-progress (and a future blog topic). In my perfect world, I do see a few Democrats that could mount strong 2020 challenges to incumbent Republican Senators:
- Beto O’Rourke against John Cornyn (R-TX)
- John Hickenlooper against Cory Gardner (R-CO)
- Mark Kelly against Martha McSally (R-AZ)
- Stacey Abrams against David Perdue (R-GA)
- Tom Vilsack against Joni Ernst (R-IA)
- Susan Rice against Susan Collins (R-ME)
- Amy McGrath against Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Some of these would be SO much fun to watch!
The Florida Strategy
Florida Democrats struggled in 2018 despite a nationwide trend in the other direction. While Trump’s immigration policies have alienated many Hispanic voters in Florida, they still didn’t turn out in large numbers for Democrats. That could change, but probably not by 2020. Florida’s trend toward a more diverse and younger electorate also won’t happen anytime soon. The right 2020 ticket might be competitive here, but even that would eat up resources. There are no other 2020 statewide races in Florida and it is a massively expensive state in which to conduct a statewide campaign. The risk/reward ratio just isn’t promising.
Given the large number of Electoral votes in Florida, candidates always want to focus here. However, from a purely numbers perspective, the best 2020 Florida strategy may be to write it off.
Bottom Lines
To beat Trump in the Electoral College, the best strategies are The Middle America Strategy, The Old White Establishment Male Strategy, and The Military Strategy. The top of the ticket must be able to successfully execute at least one of them.
For the VP spot, I’d suggest a wait-and-see approach. My first instinct would be to stack the ticket with a VP that can execute one of the other three cornerstone strategies. However, if a strong candidate using one of the other strategies emerges from the primary pack, then they should be the choice.
None of this will initially thrill young and/or progressive Democrats, but the numbers are the numbers. Democrats need the win. No agenda across the entire Democratic political spectrum has any chance of success under another four years of Trump.