Super Tuesday Muddle and Decision

Today I voted in the Massachusetts primary. I wasn't entirely sure who I would vote for until the last few minutes, which is unusual for me. I found all the considerations going through my mind interesting to me, so perhaps to others too.

I would do anything to <defeatDonaldTrump>. But how to get the best odds of doing that?

If I were personally appointing a President for the next four years, my clear choice would be Elizabeth Warren. Her values line up with mine almost perfectly, and she is very smart and thorough on the details. If she was the radical Democrat in a strong position nationally (replacing Bernie in that position) it would be very tempting to vote for her. But she's not. But the latest polls show her as the only candidate in Massachusetts with any chance to put a dent in Bernie's support and perhaps win a few delegates for use at a convention, so I considered voting for her on a tactical basis, but decided against it.

There's Bernie Sanders again, and I divide my consideration of him into two pieces.

What would he be like as President? I'm in agreement with most of his positions -- I do not believe he actually wants to nationalize the means of product along the lines of the Soviet Union. The columnist Paul Krugman says he might if he had his way ideally turn our society into one resembling Denmark. That would be fine with me. I'm more skeptical of his anti-free-trade positions, but that's not a big deal.

The biggest problem is that he seems uninterested in compromise and conciliation. He's not going to get what he proposes. Even if he rode into office on a wave that gave the Democrats a 5-vote majority in the Senate, it's not enough. No Republican would vote for anything he proposed, meaning he would need the support of almost every Democrat. And there are plenty of moderate Democrats who would not support his more radical positions. None of his big ideas is going to happen in the next four years. Can he work with moderates to enact small but real improvements? I suppose he would have his bully (that is, "terrific") pulpit as a means of expounding moderate socialist ideas as reasonable -- a long-term goal. But would he do that artfully? Or would his strident way of making his points alienate people from considering them fairly? Of course he would be vastly preferable to Trump, as he would restore and respect the institutions of US democracy. But would the people after four years think, "He's like all the other politicians, full of hot air and not getting anything done"?

How about getting elected? He's an old white guy, a comforting demographic unlikely to alienate moderate voters. When people actually think about them, many of his positions are politically popular. Yet there will be heavy use of the "socialist" cudgel against him. His unwillingness to compromise means he might have a hard time pulling in all the moderate Democrats and getting them to the polls -- let alone the independent swing voters. He does have hordes of ardent supporters who are likely to turn out for him. But where are those supporters? It matters little if solid blue states like California and New York pile up extra millions of votes for the Democrat. What matters is swing states -- and how many ardent Sanders supporters are there in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, etc.? The consideration that competes with "energizing the base" is "winning the swing voters" What about them? It might be true that with tribalism so strong today, 90% of Trump voters would never desert him -- but even half of that remaining 10% could be enough to swing those states.

And then there's Joe Biden. Another old white guy, comforting to moderates. A long track record of moderation and compromise. Not likely to enact any major changes (relative to the Obama years) -- and yet infinitely preferable to Trump in restoring the basic decency of democracy. And yet he is such an imperfect candidate. A bumbling speaker, a bit handsy with the women. He'll do everything in his power to reach out to the Bernie supporters, but it's not clear if that will be enough.

Bloomberg was appealing as a sort of "minimal pair" candidate compared to Trump. Also a New Yorker, but a genuine billionaire instead of a pretend one. Also an old white guy, associated with moderate liberal positions. But he doesn't seem to be appealing to lots of people, and using money to try to get votes (I've gotten 3 mailings from him and none from any other candidate) is a bit distasteful.

So what has been decisive? Within the past 24 hours, Klobuchar and Buttigieg dropped out of the race and endorsed Joe Biden. Dropping out is a selfless thing to do, and endorsing Biden is a strong statement -- one that most candidates do not take when they drop out. I figure they are smart people who know far more about politics than I do, especially Klobuchar. They know everything I wrote above and far more. I ultimately went with their choice and voted for Joe Biden.

Among my proud past votes was that for Bill Clinton in the primary of 1992, a year when virtually no one thought any Democrat had a chance against George Bush senior. He was actually a fairly conservative Democrat, but he was a Democrat and much preferable to any Republican.

And whether the nominee is Biden or Sanders, I will very much want to convince the supporters of the other one to come out in November.

If I adopt the perspective of a cynical bystander who wants to see a good show, Bernie Sanders will make for the more colorful campaign and election. But I don't.