Baby Super Tuesday

Eleven Democrats have filed paperwork to appear on New York’s presidential ballot. Under a Democratic Party rules change for 2020, presidential hopefuls cannot request to have their names removed from the ballot after filing with the state Board of Elections, according to New York election officials.

So, it sounds like Elizabeth Warren will still be on the ballot when there is a presidential primary at the end of next month. Michael Bennet will be as well, but not Kamala Harris. Seems silly to not allow these also rans to take their name off, but presume it might cause problems somehow to do that.

The article references Bill Weld trying to get on the Republican presidential ballot, but he did not meet the rules, so there will not be a Republican presidential primary.  My suggestion was that Michael Bloomberg should have ran a primary challenge to provide a protest vote mechanism to harm Trump and (New York isn't the only state that cancelled the primary here in effect based on a minimum support test)  probably would have qualified most places.  This is how things went in the past, such as Uncle Pat running in the 1990s.  And, we really needed something like this in 2020. In 2016, even near the end, people still had a shot to vote for John Kasich or something.  As I recall, you did have a few cases where a quarter or whatever of the voters did not vote for Trump even in May and June.

There will be special elections on that day, which as the article notes, bothers (at least officially; who knows if they really think it matters) some who figure the absence of Trump will limit turnout (as if special elections ever really have significant turnout).  Though New York streamlined things somewhat, having state/federal elections on the same day, the presidential election cycle does add another layer. Alabama, e.g., had the federal senator race on Super Tuesday (resulting in a run-off) while New York (and places like Maine) have a separate set of elections, late June here.  Some state races of note there. 

Elizabeth Warren suspending her campaign, but not endorsing anyone yet (Cory Booker is the latest for Biden; Marianne Williamson is still for Sanders while Tulsi Gabbard is still running) led the Working Family Party to need to make a choice as well.  They chose Sanders, which is not too surprising though I personally would not go that route.  Since Warren has yet to endorse, and her supporters seem to if anything split down the middle, it might have at best been worthwhile to stay neutral.  But, particularly with important races right away (Michigan being cited as a sort of last ditch by some), guess the party felt a need to do this.

Okay, having written the above beforehand, let's go to the results. They are mostly as expected.  Biden did very well in Michigan, Missouri and Mississippi.  (The bad odds for Sanders is suggested by Sanders winning Michigan 52/48 in a different environment in 2016; Biden won 53%, Sanders 36% with the rest split.)  He won Idaho while Sanders won North Dakota.  The leaves Washington, which is basically split in thirds now (Biden/Sanders/other with Warren/Bloomberg/Other again splitting things three ways).   The proportional voting makes the wins less complete but it also makes it rather hard to see Sanders (a wash in many remaining states is asking a lot, especially delegate rich places like Florida) catching up even if the delegate differential (under 200) looks not hopeless. Remember too that "zombie candidates" who endorsed Biden have nearly 100 delegates too.

As some note, it is likely a bad idea to simply decide to "end things now" for a variety of reasons.  For one thing, like Warren not endorsing anyone right away, a greatly divided electorate needs time to move on.  Plus, we are around fifty percent of the voters having their say so far.  Why wouldn't the rest, at least in the short term, want to have their chance to make their wishes known?  Elections are not just about winning the final count or the losing side in safe districts would have little reason to vote.  As to concerns about the coronavirus, that is a reasonable thing, but there should be a way to allow people to vote.  Absentee voting is broadly allowed many places. Some ad hoc mechanisms can also be passed to deal with the emergency. 

It also seems logical to let Biden and Sanders debate at least once more.  Let them engage.  The voters are strongly split, including by age, and a means to engage like that makes sense. Yes, Sanders should try not to make it too ugly, just as Biden last night welcomed his support and said it wasn't over. That he would aim for every vote.  And, yes, voters can be emotional more than rational.  Talking about odds will not settle the day there.  It is good to push for unity and respect.  Yes, it is tedious to hear about how Sanders is god's gift to things like cheaper health care as if this wasn't something promoted by the left wing of the party, or the party as a whole (note the meaning of "PPACA"), for years now. 

One person provided an in depth discussion of how our primary system holds back candidates unfairly, but net, it is unclear how much that really mattered.  A range of candidates (hey look! Sestak got some votes in Michigan)  had little route to success in the end as a whole even if we had a better system. Which I'm sure we can have -- a shorter and more evenhanded by region primary season seems quite possible -- but Sanders was a dubious candidate as a whole.  Sanders supposedly was aiming for a "30%" strategy of getting a plurality and having the rest split the difference. That isn't a great path to coalition building, I think, especially since he could not obtain a basic part of the Democratic coalition (blacks). 

Biden had various strengths there even if I didn't like him in various respects.  And, Warren didn't have his long term security (including as Obama's vice president) among other things. Yes, sexism hurt her. But, it wasn't the only problem. I still would have liked to see a Biden v. Warren match-up.  She very well might have still lost since the people as a whole are cautious and saw Biden as a safe experienced kindly grandfather type while Warren is newer, more wonky and basically more of a risk. Sanders was running a second time.  Sexism alone doesn't make that a plus.

Anyway, the path was apparent before yesterday's "Baby Super Tuesday" races with only a little room for improvement (if the same basically happened and Sanders did better in Michigan, a sliver of votes in one state matters how much?). Some made out that Sanders was the frontrunner for a time.  A rather small time, if one was careful.  Other than Nevada, what warranted that?  South Carolina was rather predictable. Other than Nevada, there clearly was a strong "not Sanders" movement and it was just a matter of how united it would be.  Warren helped show Bloomberg was surely not the answer there.  Buttigieg/Klobuchar were not really likely.  That left Warren, but though some did in their heart see her as a good second choice, they were cautious and she like Sanders couldn't get that black vote either.

The path forward seems apparent -- Biden will be even more so be seen as the presumptive candidate which will help in those states more divided while states like Florida will go to him naturally.  The proportional drawn out system in place will mean this will take time.  Two-thirds of the delegates will be allotted by the end of this month, but Biden at this point needs over 1000 delegates more.  The time can be spent promoting his message and working to unite the party behind him.  Biden as a median figure is helpful there since it will mean the left will get some stuff in the deal.  A (black) woman vice president also will help with Warren supporters.  Of whom, I'm one ... I vote the end of April.