Come Play with Me! (says every email or text asking for money ever)
Ok, while it is probably to early to completely fall in love with a candidate, it is not too early to decide where your money will go. Indeed many of the candidates out there need early donation support to be taken seriously by media and to make it onto the debate stage in June. So I’ve been spending the last couple months researching the records of my shortlist, reading their biographies and/or “I’m running for president” book and trying to measure them on the following scale:
This will be a long wonky diary, so you can stop reading the details later at any time.
Executive Summary
There are about 72 weeks to the Democratic convention. I didn’t have any volunteer opportunities the last 2 months but I am on track to earn about 6k through March after taxes that I didn’t expect to, so If I donate $30/week to a candidate, if they last to convention that’s $2160 = enough below the 2500 cap that I can reward somebody with a bonus for a great debate performance or a brave new policy position. I made enough to support 3 candidates. Who to support?
Spoiler ending for those who are already bored with details, for me: Harris, Warren, Inslee.
Castro or Gillibrand might still get a donation someday if they do better and I make more “found money”. Sanders doesn’t need my help and while Biden scored the best of the moderates, he also doesn’t need my help. Everybody mentioned here gets a score later, although Castro, Gillibrand and to some extent Inslee are scored more superficially than the rest due to less vetting.
Scoring
Four categories: Policy, Communication Skills, Media Skills, Organizational Competence.
Metric is scale of: -4 to 4 in each category, averaging below a 2 in any category will probably disqualify you. -4 is the most toxic imaginable, +4 is among best I’ve seen in my lifetime.
- Policy: 4 is you’re the national figure in progressive circles on this topic, 3 is solid support for aggressive policies like GND, Filibuster reform, M4A and similar. 2 is HRC 2016 on most things (she was a 2.5-3 on advocacy for women and children), 1 is Obama 2012 on most things, 0 is a typical bipartisan compromise, bonuses if it is big in scale, which is why 2020 candidates score a point higher than HRC’s similar 2016 positions (eg, ACA is a 1 because it is a 0 on details but has a massive impact). We have a lot of good candidates, my winners had either a 4 on an important policy, or 3-4 on several and an average on most things around 3. Below zero, well, -1 is old school Republican, -2 is typical Koch Brothers/Romney, -3 is Tea Party or Trump average, -4 is Trump on immigration, race and corruption.
- Personal Communication skills — you are measured on 3 things, where 1 is competent, 0 is kind of bad, -1 is extremely incompetent and you get a +1 if you are especially in tune with the zeitgeist of the election. The metrics are: Speeches, Town Hall/Debate, Interviews. Obama 2008 was a 4, but 2012 only a 3. HRC was about a 2, her speeches were merely adequate. Trump 2016 was about a 3 if you are his base (he spoke in your CT language etc) and a 0-1 if you weren’t.
- Media Skills. A 4 is 2008 Obama, 2016 Trump, 2018 AOC. Everything you do gets covered and coverage is neutral to positive, or if negative you can reverse it (eg, Obama’s Race speech after Wright, Trump’s enduring the Access Hollywood becoming a profile of courage among his supporters, etc). A 3 is somebody like Sanders, Biden (or HRC if it wasn’t so negative, see below) where you are already a national figure and get a certain amount of coverage for anything you do. 2 is when you make an effort you get some earned Media (eg Warren, Beto, Harris, Klobuchar in this field), the kind of person who gets a CNN town hall. 1 is you can get an interview or talk show appearance and that’s about it. You get a -1 if your media coverage is almost always bad. To me this is the primary “electability” metric in 2020 with the other 3 being a distant second, although after we see some primary votes I might change that opinion
- Organizational Competence. Again 3 metrics on a -1 to 1 scale, with +1 bonus for unusually good track record (such as Obama’s scandal free/no drama operations under massive scrutiny). Metrics are: Internal Policy Execution (Getting laws passed as legislator, policies enacted using executive powers in public or private life). External Policy Execution (getting policy done that requires cooperation from others in power — most foreign policy stuff, state vs other states/federal stuff, outside activism getting laws changed etc). Staffing (diversity in leadership roles, scandal-free, reputation for raising competence of organization after taking charge, treatment of and loyalty of subordinates).
The Contenders
We have a large field, so I did some winnowing.
Policy — if you aren’t going big, go home. This eliminated everybody but Sanders, Warren, Harris, Inslee, Gillibrand and Castro. Klobuchar and Booker started on the shortlist but eliminated themselves in their bipartisany incremental rhetoric, and Gillibrand’s been on life support for a while — she looks great on paper, is actually near a 4 on women’s advocacy but keeps saying and doing things that make her sound like her heart is closer to Klobuchar in practice. Biden’s so strong in the other areas he gets a decent score overall, which means he’s the top of my list if nobody on my policy shortlist succeeds.
Media — If you can’t make the media notice you even with significant effort you aren’t electable in 2020. This put Castro off the list for now, but the good thing about this metric is you can change my mind at any time by making a splash with something you do. (unlike policy where if you harden a position out of my zone, you’re done unless my entire shortlist fails). Gillibrand again is on life support here — she’s getting a bit more media than Castro but not very much more.
Do you actually need my money? Sanders and Biden don’t need my money. Everybody else does.
The Vetting
A full vetting means watching every interview, speech, town hall + campaign kickoff add, plus reading a biography (usually the “I am running for president” book, but sometimes the one before it, like Warren’s “I am running for Senate” book if it was rich in biographical details). I like the voice of the candidate in books to get a feel for how they think. Ask me sometime why I think Klobuchar’s spouse would make the best First Gentleman of the contenders, or how I think Klobuchar’s prosecutorial career compares with Harris based on how they both told the story of why they took that job, how they ran for office as a DA/AG type and what they chose to emphasize about their career when given the chance to describe it in their own words. Harris, Warren and Klobuchar are in this category (so yes I do disqualify people on the full Vet sometimes. Sorry Amy).
A strong vetting is either “I have watched this candidate my entire adult life to some extent, am pretty familiar with what they did after 2009 and have watched every speech, interview, town hall in 2019 but haven’t read their biography” Sanders and Biden are in this category, and weirdly Inslee is mostly due to second hand vetting (my sister is a lifelong WA resident and an environental scientist. She says he’s the real deal both on climate change and getting shit done, his resume is pretty good and he impressed me with his 2019 speech, campaign kickoff and Maddow interview). I need to read Inslee’s book, at minimum, and do a bit of online research to underpin my sister’s impressions to get him to a full vett, but he really needs my donation and I expect him to pass the full vett.
A superficial vetting is “I have watched every speech, interview, town hall in at least 2019, sometimes 2018, have googled their history and know some secondhand stuff from prior media/interviews, some MSM articles about their history etc. Castro, Gillibrand and Booker are in this category, and yes, even a superficial review can get you off the list (sorry Booker! I do like some things about you). Gabbard is also in this category, she was unusual enough to get a second look just to see what the fuss was about. I only score folks here if they’re still in contention on my shortlist for future vetting (so not Gabbard unless she catches fire and starts polling at 10% nationally, and 20%+ in early states).
No vetting is “some folks on Kos and the media keep mentioning his/her name and I googled it once.”. Beto is the only one likely to get a full vett, mostly as Biden competition unless he comes out with something more Gillibrand-like on policy than everybody expects. Yee and Williamson are also in this category. John Delany managed to get himself eliminated with a single interview I accidently watched. He’s basically Bloomberg on policy without the accomplishments or ability to self-finance. Hickenlooper is a bit better than Delany but also a nonstarter just from his campaign launch. Butteigig gives a nice interview but I just can’t go from Mayor of North Bend to President. Castro is as weak as I’m willing to go on Resume barring Beto-like celebrity power.
INDIVIDUAL SCORES
Stop reading if saying good things about a candidate you don’t like, or bad things about your favored candidate bothers you. These opinions are formed on a mix of candidate’s own writings, their 2018-2020 speeches, town halls, interviews and to a lesser extent on past positions, especially if out of Dem mainstream (for better or worse) at the time the were made. I also give points for profiles in courage — sticking to convictions or campaign promises even when it costs you politically, especially in the Policy and Organizational Competence metrics.
Note that just about everybody (I think Biden is the only exception, and Inslee if you count climate change pac as problematic — he has sworn off fossil fuel pac) in the following have sworn off PAC contributions this primary, even Booker. A fairly typical small donation metric for this group is about 33% small donations since 2013, with the low end being 10% and a couple outliers like Warren (55%) and Sanders (70ish%). I am going to be a “small donor” for the first 6 weeks, then a “Large Donor from Tech Industry” after that for each candidate in the final category.
The Moderates
Nobody in this category gets my support in the primary unless all in later categories drop out.
Biden in spite of highest score gets no cash donations because I like both Klobuchar and Booker better on policy and their campaigns need it more.
Biden: 9.5
Policy 1 (2 Foreign Policy), Communication 2, Media 3, Organizational Ability 3
Basically he benefits from a known persona and skill at working the system from inside and being able to broker deals from the outside. Note that I rate most of our candidates as a zero on foreign policy, as they haven’t stated positions, and mostly use External organizational ability as a proxy for this since they lack actual international diplomatic or policy experience. So grading on a curve, his 2 in foreign policy is as significant as the 4s I give other candidates in their progressive policy positions. Signature issues a point higher than the base add a “.5” to base policy score because they help in making a candidate stand out from the herd.
Klobuchar: 8.5
Policy 2 (no signature issues), Communication 3, Media 2, Organizational Ability 1.5
Klobuchar is much where HRC was on policy and approach. She seems competent at all usual communication forms and is theatric enough and taken seriously enough to get some earned media but not a ton. She’s competent at internal policy execution but has no real experience with external beyond some minor legislation influence while a prosecutor. Her staffing gets decent loyalty and seems competent but gets dinged twice — once for lack of diversity and once for negative news caused by staff ill treatment charges, so she’s only getting a .5 there.
Booker : 6
Policy 2 (see below), Communication 2, Media 1, Organizational Ability 1
Booker is problematic on policy. I think he’s about a 3 on policy goals but he’s about a 1 on how he gets it done, sounding like he thinks the electorate is 2008, possibly having learned nothing from Obama failing to get more than 3 votes in 8 years from any Republican senator (one of whom switched parties shortly after). I think he does communicate well in interviews, and gets maybe a .5 in speeches and I’m assuming he’s ok at debate but have no evidence yet, so about .5. He was better at media as a mayor and Senate candidate than he has shown so far as a presidential candidate, and his organization seems ok from basic competence but his record on using power internally or externally is spotty — some successes but often with short term goals using approaches that are bad policy in long run (eg, charter schools actions as mayor). He might score higher if I got to know him better, but that will only happen if every candidate outside the Moderate lane drops out.
The Also-Rans
These are people who have both ambitious policies but have a reason they’re not in my top tier. For Sanders it is primarily that he doesn’t need my money. All other concerns I have about his campaign including my 2016 leftover emotional baggage are baked into his scores. The other two just haven’t done that well since their launch so whatever other merits they may have they’re failing “electability” for lack of ability to attract news cycles in a positive or at least ambitious/provoking way.
Sanders 9.5
Policy 3 (4 on Economic Inequality), Communication 1, Media 3, Organizational Ability 2
For reference Sanders 2016 would have been docked a point on policy for lack of intersectionality in his speeches and platform, and another point on organizational ability for lack of diversity in leadership roles. I think he gives a good speech but does less well in debate and interview settings (not terrible, but not up to the standards of other candidates). As with Trump his communication tends to be polarizing (a Sanders base would give him a +1 bonus, especially in speeches, those who dislike the shouting/finger wagging older man who sometimes invades personal space while communicating might drop it to 0.5ish). The media likes to report on him, but he isn’t a 4 because he reacts badly to being attacked, doubling down instead of turning the attention to advantage as with Obama in 2008 or AOC in 2019, and while they like him, he can’t move entire news cycles with a tweet the way Trump can (reasons vary between Campaigner and President but he gets attention like nobody else, period). Still a very strong candidate on overall metrics, and I don’t find it at all surprising that he and Biden are frontrunners now.
Gillibrand 8
Policy 3 (4 Women’s Advocacy), Communication 2, Media 1.5, Organizational Ability 2
Gillibrand on policy has a lot to recommend, including not yet ruling out the filibuster and support for all the big programs, on paper. I think she gives a pretty good interview and speech but haven’t been enthralled by her town hall/debate type performances. She is about a level 2 at basic media competence but has a tendency to weaken her paper policy stances with public statements in MSM (eg, Omar recently, and answering her very first interview question about the reason for her candidacy by talking about minor bipartisan achievements in the Senate). She runs a scandal-free office and has a solid record of small-ball internal policy but has limited experience with external policy. I’d rate her a 1.5 except I give her another .5 on organization for actually making a real impact on her signature advocacy issues, especially sexual harassment in the military, even when it makes her unpopular or hurts her politically. I really want to like her candidacy but her media weaknesses, both self-inflicted and just unable to generate news cycles as well as others have kept her in second tier. She’s holding her cards fairly close to her chest, she could go bigger on liberal policies or drift into the Klobuchar lane pretty easily.
Castro 6.5
Policy 2.5 (4 Immigration Reform), Communication 1, Media 1, Organizational Ability 1
It is tough to measure Catro on policy. He’s a solid 3 on LGBTQ+ but his only stated positions on GND, M4A are closer to a 2 and he has weighed in on other stuff I can’t find a reference without more vetting than I’ve given him. I like him in interviews, but he seems only baseline competent at speeches and town hall/debate settings. The real problem is media. I’m not hearing his message, he’s kind of getting the HRC treatment without her standing as a national figure to help her break through even as much as she did in 2016. Related to that he seemed like a competent mayor and HUD person but when your best external policy accomplishment is a sister-city deal, it is hard to see evidence of the ability to build both a national campaign and be effective as President.
The Cash Winners
Today these individuals all got $125/month recurring donations.
Harris 11.5
Policy 3 (3.5 Intersectional), Communication 3, Media 2, Organizational Ability 3.25
Harris doesn’t strictly have a single signature issue but is above average in anything involving structural inequality, so her net policy score is 3.25. She also has pretty major accomplishments in internal policy (her programs pioneered as DA are modeled nationwide), external policy (in both legislation and hostile negotiation with banks as DA) and organization (AG office in CA is a bigger organization than Governor in most states) and gets the profile of courage boost for executing policy once elected in the way she campaigned, even when it costs her heat from left or the right. I personally think she is strong in Speech, Debate/Town Hall and Interviews, plus her book of all the biographies was most helpful in “getting into her head” and understanding why she’s made her choices and policies. She has gained mostly positive media attention but has to make an effort to make a news cycle, and has done a fair job so far at using criticism to advance her agenda, but only fair (not at Rev Wright type reversal level). It should be fairly obvious from the score why she’s my top pick. She’s got strengths in all of my metrics, she’s the only candidate whose thought process resembles STEM in spite of legal training/career (legacy of parents probably) and I feel lucky to live near enough to Oakland to volunteer once that’s needed.
Warren 9.75
Policy 3.5 (4 Structural Economic Inequality), Communication 1.5, Media 2, Organizational Ability 2
Even though she’s got same signature policy as Sanders, I like her take on it better. She is much more aware of structural barriers and didn’t need two campaigns and a changed staff to get her to focus on more than wallet-issues. Further she’s tied it all together, with the most ambitious tax scheme first, to pay for everything else. This is why she scores highest on raw policy score. From a communications point, her speeches and town/hall debates are significantly better than Candidate Warren vs Brown when she started her career, getting basically a half point in each category over the zero I expected prior to this campaign. She’s breaking through the media wall mostly on the raw audacity of her policy proposals, running to the left of even Sanders, and it is working for her. She’s surprisingly strong on External Policy (not foreign policy, but CFPB was an activist-level outsider thing she brought into being before she was anything but a professor) but less impressive at getting things done as a politician (.5 rather than 1 on raw organization and internal policy). I did not expect to like her this much, and she got on my radar and out of Also Ran in 2020 primarily via policy and the effect it had on the media. Note that while I consider her as strong in her own way (thus nearly identical scores as Biden and Sanders) a lot of that is potential that she has not yet realized (which is also true of Harris, whom I consider stronger than any other candidate, although for different reasons). Warren in my mind also benefits from a kind of STEM thought process — most Economics professors unfortunately are weaker than they should be on evidence/experiment based thinking but Warren actually got radicalized by data and rode it all the way to CFPB and a long rear-guard defense against bad bankruptcy law (which sadly finally failed in the oughts).
Inslee 8
Policy 3 (4 Climate Change), Communication 1, Media 1, Organizational Ability 3
This “8” score might rise if he gets more media traction. Inslee is probably the best on policy because of how Climate Change interacts with everything except when it comes to Intersectional Progressivism. He’s about where Sanders is there, trying hard but it isn’t his lived experience. On paper though he’s absolutely in the Harris/Warren/Sanders neighborhood on pretty much everything. On communication, he interviews well, but my sister says his speeches/debates are lackluster — not terrible but not great either. He’s considered a long shot by the media and he’s going to have to grow his ability to move news cycles both in MSM and on social media to change that. From an organizational standpoint though, this guy has an even better resume on most things than Biden, having been both a legislator and a governor and effective in both roles, with a profile of courage on gun control costing him his seat (briefly) and some climate change advocacy from the activist standpoint. As governor he’s resisted external influences (oil industry, other state governors and federal) and has lead on using the court system to resist Trump. Of all my donor targets he probably needs my money the most to help get traction.
Update: Wow, Community spotlight. Thanks to whomever rescued this!
