,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I'm thinking the closest analog for the 2020 Dem primaries could be 2004. Field was ostensibly wide open, Dean attracted early energy and attention, but ultimately voters coalesced around the more "electable" candidate (Kerry) because their overriding objective was to beat Bush
Of course, Kerry didn't turn out to be "electable" -- all his purported strengths were transformed by the GOP into liabilities ("flip-flopper," denigrating his Vietnam service) but that was the thinking of the Dem primary electorate at the time. Hence the current appeal of Biden
I have certain preferences (in terms of candidates, policy outcomes, etc.) but I at least try to subordinate them analytically when assessing political dynamics: in other words, I try to be "impartial" when analyzing events. Most in the punditocracy don't even attempt to do this
This is a lot of money, and I'd wager that most Democrats are *happy* that Biden is raising a lot of money from wealthy donors, because they want him to have as much money as possible in service of defeating Trump
Abrams running would be bad for Biden. It would place additional pressure on black elected officials to stay neutral, whereas Biden wants them to endorse early. (He's already gotten several notable endorsements from powerful black Dems)
John Lewis famously endorsed Hillary early in the 2008 cycle, but then withdrew the endorsement and endorsed Obama once he started winning primaries and caucuses. That was an extremely important development for Obama. Could imagine a roughly similar dynamic playing out this time
Might get in trouble for saying this, but whatever: Abrams clearly has a more natural attachment to black voters writ large than Harris, and even arguably Booker. Southern blacks in particular, which is the constituency Biden needs most. (Majority of SC Dem electorate is black)
