Here in the U. S. Eastern time zone, we are now nine hours
and twenty-nine minutes into the new year.
It occurred to me to wonder on how many other January firsts I have
wished my readers a happy new year, and a quick search revealed four: 2009, 2011, 2015, and 2018. My well wishes last year contained the
following passage:
“If Trump can be restrained from launching a nuclear war, I
believe the prospects for the new year are good. Mueller will indict some
more members of the transition and administration, the Democrats will win the
House and even, God willing, the Senate, Trump will be impeached and put on
trial by the Senate, another dozen or more politicians will be outed as sexual
predators, and The Philosopher's Stone, along about April Fool's Day, will
pass the three million mark in total views.”
That is six predictions, three of which have come true and a
fourth that could still be confirmed.
Not a bad record of armchair prognostications. This morning, during an extremely foggy and
uncharacteristically warm walk, I gave some thought to how the race for the 2020
Democratic Party nomination might play out in this new year. [I shall get to more important matters a
little later.] A dramatic move by the
DNC not much commented upon as yet will upend our settled expectations about
that race. A word of explanation.
For as long as I can remember, we politics junkies have
obsessed about the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, despite their
numerical irrelevance to the outcome of the nomination race, for reasons too
well known to require rehearsal. This
year, the state primary schedule has been completely revised. On March 3rd, exactly one month
after the Iowa caucuses, nine states
will hold primaries, including
California and Texas! What is more,
voters in California, a state with a large mail-in ballot share, will start
sending in their ballots at just about the time when those Iowa caucuses are
occurring.
California and Texas are huge states. They have big pots of delegates and take huge
sums of money to be competitive. Early
name recognition will play a big role on March 3rd. So you can forget about twenty candidates
shaking hands with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. By the time March 3rd is over, the
field will be winnowed down to a handful of candidates.
Cui bono? Pretty clearly, Kamala Harris in California
and Beto O’Rourke in Texas. Elizabeth Warren
and Bernie Sanders because of pre-existing name recognition and a proven
ability to raise money. Joe Biden? I just can’t see it. The Anita Hill disaster will come back to
haunt him big time. Most of the rest are
either running for Veep or wasting their time.
If I had to predict the ticket now, a year and more before
the first votes are cast, I would say some combination of the following folks
in the top or second spots: Warren,
Harris, O’Rourke, and Sanders.
By this time next year, we will know a great deal more.
Happy New Year.
ReplyDeleteOf the candidates you name, I hope that it's Sanders, who is the only main party presidential candidate in my lifetime whom I genuinely like, admire and feel an affinity with. Sanders seems like someone who could be an old friend from my activist days in the 60's and early 70's. Or least a guy I felt enough in common with to argue politics with at length back then.
Hopefully not O'Rourke who is a guy I could easily learn to detest.
The above are just gut feelings, not politically judgements.
please please not O'Rourke
ReplyDeletean interesting commentary
ReplyDeleteDavid, this is very interesting and very persuasive. Thanks for he link.
ReplyDelete