Does watching the 2020 Democratic presidential primary field make you feel a bit like a soccer mom watching a bunch of 5-year-olds endlessly chase the ball around the field in a single clump?
Does it remind you less of an activity undertaken with a strategy in mind by people who understand their specific roles, and more of a quasi-anarchical effort at sport by small people who struggle to see past the next two minutes or tightly control their movements?
If so, you’re not alone, and your eyes are not deceiving you. Setting aside the lack of seriousness and maturity of some of the policy proposals we’re hearing, the same trend you see in little kids’ sports is playing out again, as it always does in primaries on both sides of the aisle: A bunch of public figures are running around, all chasing the same much-desired object, with maybe one or two at best marking their position, and the overwhelming majority failing to make a dent or get anywhere close to scoring, assisting, or blocking the other team from racking up points.
Case in point: This week’s CNN town halls with five of the current candidates. Apart from first-up Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. — one of the few names in the presidential mix who has apparently decided she knows what position she’s playing (call it midfield) and intends to play it in dedicated fashion without getting distracted — the five-hour marathon mostly served to underline this ongoing but tiresome trend in the 2020 primary.
Klobuchar was followed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who for months has been chasing ball hog Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., around the field, fruitlessly trying to get a taste of the same base excitement and enthusiasm by copycatting him in a watered-down fashion on policy: not free college, but a massive student debt forgiveness program; “Medicare for all” but “open to different paths” to getting there.
Earlier in the week, Warren managed to tackle and outrun the rest of the candidates when she decided to straight up call for President Trump’s impeachment. That, plus Sanders’ subsequent town hall just an hour later, was the kickoff for this week’s not-so fun and games.
For months now, most of the real and prospective field has been veering toward Sanders’ version of policy in a range of areas. “Medicare for all” used to be a fringe idea. When Obamacare was passed, the public option was considered too fringe for Democrats to pursue it. Now, it’s reasonably mainstream, especially among Democratic presidential candidates.
Bernie’s free college tuition proposal has driven Warren into the stated student-debt forgiveness terrain; Klobuchar, who generally has resisted veering left to chase Sanders, is calling for free community college.
The Sanders-backed Green New Deal sounded completely bonkers when it was (badly) unveiled by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and no Democratic senators, including those running for president, actually voted for it when it came up in a “stunt” vote in the Senate. However, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., is a cosponsor of a Green New Deal resolution. Warren said in her town hall that she is “a strong supporter of the Green New Deal.” South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, generally considered the lightest on policy, has also voiced support, though not in such definitive terms.
The trend continued live and in prime time on CNN with Harris and Buttigieg, who followed Warren and Sanders in the town hall-o-rama. By the end of the evening, both had jumped on the “impeach” train.
Harris demonstrated the most kid-playing-soccer credentials, though, by simply appearing to buy into Sanders’ idea of allowing the Boston Marathon bomber to vote. She has since walked it back, but used the same “have that conversation” kinda-sorta-approval she also did with regard to the notion of slavery reparations during the televised event itself.
Harris is no dummy even if she’s new to presidential politics. Nor is Buttigieg. Hopefully both know that despite Klobuchar’s weaker polling numbers, the stronger play is actually to do what the Minnesota senator is doing: stake out a position that really (or at least mostly) is yours, not a facsimile of someone else’s, or, depending on your interpretation of “let’s have that conversation,” simply stake out a position in the first place. Be who you are, warts and all, not Sanders — or even Warren, the Sanders-lite candidate — in different, more appealing packaging.
After all, while candidates want to believe that voters, especially in primaries, choose based on policy and where candidates fall on the ideological spectrum, the evidence just doesn’t bear that out. Maybe Harris, Buttigieg, and all of the others really are being exactly who they are, their 100% authentic selves. But they had better be sure, because the reality is, voters pick an avatar they like and conform their policy positions to him or her, not candidates based on which one best matches up to their policy preferences.
That’s much of why Republicans nominated Trump in 2016, despite his being considerably more moderate on everything from healthcare (where he actually ran on single-payer) to guns and abortion (Trump may now be an National Rifle Association-and-evangelicals favorite, but it’s not based on his pre-2017 record), from spending (he was for more of it) to family leave (as championed by Ivanka Trump), than the rest of the field.
It’s also why in 2008, Democrats went with Barack Obama, who had a more conservative healthcare policy than Hillary Clinton, signaled less enthusiasm for 1970s-level tax policy than the former first lady, and who had never ranted about a “vast right wing conspiracy,” in which many progressives then believed and still do.
And it’s why Republicans that year went with John McCain, who had voted against the Bush tax cuts and was ripped for it, had a weakish NRA rating, and staked out moderate turf on immigration and prescription drug policy. These are but a few examples to demonstrate the overall trend. Candidates and consultants think it’s about ideology and who most conforms to the “base.” But the bottom line is, voters reward guts and personality, as well as people they think can most effectively stick it to the other side.
Klobuchar is banking on that helping her, with Democrats showing an interest in nominating whoever can beat Trump. She mentioned during her town hall that she won every Minnesota congressional district, even the one former Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann used to occupy. Sanders is banking on it helping him for obvious reasons.
As objectionable as Sanders’ philosophy may actually be to many American voters, you can’t argue the senator lacks personality. Nor can one plausibly claim he doesn’t have some gumption staking out turf on the far left. After all, he’s such a hot commodity the rest of the field is chasing after him on a whole suite of issues. The proof is in the pudding.
At the end of the day, the whole Democratic field could ultimately be eclipsed by Sanders just like the whole GOP field was in 2016 by Trump. The theory of “lanes” in party primaries could well prove to be bogus on both sides of the aisle, indefinitely, and not a mere 2016 Republican aberration.
But the non-Sanders candidates are never going to find out if they continue to handle the race the way they are. They need to figure out what position they’re playing, and they’d better be sure it’s one they can really own. Then, they had better mark it or they’re going to spend the rest of this year and much of the next chasing Sanders around the field with only the occasional touch of the ball. They might be left with only a Trump reelection victory to show for it.
It’s time to clue up: A presidential contest isn’t local, county sports. It’s the World Cup. Democratic candidates should act accordingly.
Liz Mair is the founder, owner, and president of Mair Strategies LLC, a boutique strategic consulting firm that works on financial services and tech policy issues, including antitrust.
