Not-too-long ago, I took another cheap shot at the dead horse that is The Party Decides. The book that I started this blog to defecate upon, back in 2016. Very brief refresher. After the mess of the 1968 Democratic convention, where the party muckety-mucks nominated Hubert Humphrey even though Eugene McCarthy won the primaries because back then, primaries didn't matter, the parties changed their rules, so that delegates were selected by primaries and caucuses. According to The Party Decides, by the 2000s, the muckety-mucks had reasserted control by figuring out how to use endorsements and donations to signal to the unwashed masses whom to support. That way, they'd still get their way, and there'd be no more Carters. The elites were back in charge.
Even before 2016, I never thought the model had much empirical power, and the 2016 GOP contest was a disaster for the model. Let's call that the silver lining of Trump. We may have a psychopathic idiot child as President, but at least his victory makes clear that a lousy book was wrong, wrong, wrong.
And I was saying so long before my colleagues clued in.
Let's kick that dead horse some more, because what the hell? Suppose we took that model seriously for 2020. Whom would the Democrats nominate?
The lazy answer is that it depends on whom the elites decide to back, but there's a cheat in that answer, and it was my complaint about how they handled the 2004 Democratic contest. You see, endorsements followed the polls, rather than predicting it. For a time, Howard Dean led in the polls, and when he looked inevitable to the muckety-mucks, they endorsed him to avoid pissing off the inevitable nominee, even though they despised him. Then, after his candidacy collapsed and John Kerry rose to the top, the endorsements went to Kerry. That period of Dean's lead in the endorsements, though, is a problem for the model. Defenders of The Party Decides, prior to Trump, would always respond to my 2004 challenge by saying, but wait! Kerry got more endorsements! We win!
No. If endorsements follow the polls because the muckety-mucks are spineless cowards, then to borrow from Ash Williams yet again, your model ain't predictin' but two things right now. During the 2004 campaign, looking at endorsements at the time, when the campaign was midstream (where you don't change dead horses, like the one I'm beating to death... or something), that model would have predicted Dean.
So here's the thing about the model. The question is about mechanism. Can the muckety-mucks use the method of endorsements and signaling to get the kind of candidate they want?
The kind of candidate they want....
Now let's be honest about this. If you look at the current Democratic field, some of these candidates are the kinds of candidates that the muckety-mucks would want, and some aren't.
Sanders? Nope. They don't want that guy, and he isn't even a Democrat. No, the 2016 contest wasn't rigged. Sanders is just a paranoid idiot, like Trump. However, they don't want that numbskull.
I could go down the entire list, but I'd like to finish this post today, and typing the list would take me through the week.
What kind of candidate would the muckety-mucks like? Someone with as much experience as possible, name recognition, no major scandalous baggage, not particularly ideologically extreme, and basically just kind of generic. Yeah, charisma is nice, but minimize the exposure to attack.
There are a couple of candidates who have been vying for this type of slot, but really, this is Joe Biden. I gave my analysis of the Inslee-Klobuchar exchange, but from the perspective of the muckety-mucks, frankly, either of those two would be of the style they'd want. For all practical purposes, bland people with mainstream platforms, credible experience, no scandal, and not a lot to attack.
Would the muckety-mucks like a white man out of fear of electoral racism/sexism? I really don't know, but Biden's the former VP, and has name recognition and built-in support.
Point being, if we take the model seriously and just had the muckety-mucks get together in a smoke-filled back room because someone forgot to air it out after Boehner and Obama left town, I think it is hard to argue that anyone other than Biden would get the nomination.
They hate Sanders. They're afraid of Warren going too far and alienating the center on policy, along with her political foolishness (see, for example, the DNA testing stupidity, because, wow, is she a stupid for someone supposed to be the smart one). Bu...Butte... That mayor dude? He's a mayor. Be serious. Haven't we seen what happens when you elect someone whose resume makes clear that he's unqualified? O'Rourke? LO-SER. Sorrynotsorry. Booker? Eh. They'd be OK with him, but they'd prefer experience and built-in name recognition. I'm starting to run out of candidates with any significant polling, except...
Oh, yeah. Harris. Would the muckety-mucks consider her? Lighter resume. On the other hand, less prone to stumbling on stage. (By... far. That's sort of like comparing your kid's piano recital McCoy Tyner, though.) Would they, frankly, discriminate on the basis of race/sex based on the expectation that the general electorate would discriminate on the basis of race/sex? Maybe. And when the alternative is a former VP?
Democratic House members, senators and governors-- the muckety-mucks-- are fundamentally risk-averse and deeply skittish people. Given a choice between Harris and Biden, it is highly likely that they'd pick Biden. Racism? Sexism? Resume preference? General risk aversion? Expectation of the electorate's racism/sexism/resume preference, combining into risk aversion? All of the above? At the end of the day, smoke-filled back room on a secret ballot, Biden would win. They might tell their primary voters that they voted Harris in something like the famous "Bradley effect," but Biden would win.
And if Biden doesn't rack up endorsements, it tells you that the muckety-mucks don't think it'll work. And that, too, tells you something.
Would I bet on Biden? Nope. Here's the PredictIt betting, and as of this morning, Harris comes out on top, edging out Biden. Biden's odds, according to the betting, are currently less than 1 in 4. The last time I brought up the topic of Biden and the muckety-mucks, I mentioned that if anyone took The Party Decides seriously, they should just think that Biden was going to walk away with it, and at the time, Biden was sitting on a massive lead. I warned against taking that position. And here we are.
Who gets the nomination? I have no clue. Our models suck.
