No, There Isn’t Anyone Else

The leaders of the Democratic Party are unhappy. In many respects, they should not be so- every day seems to bring damaging new revelations about Donald Trump’s conduct with regards to the Ukraine, his polling numbers for reelection against nearly every Democratic contender have gone from bad to worse. So, what cause could they have for complaint? In a piece this week for the New York Times, author Jonathan Martin reported a widespread sense of dissatisfaction among top Democratic donors with the current field of Presidential candidates. Even after almost a year of campaigning, which has whittled away many of the original contenders to be the party’s nominee in 2020, many in the party establishment are dissatisfied with the candidates on offer. The article details how they are talking among themselves and casting about for an alternative candidate to enter the race late, eyeing several big names who have so far stayed out of the race. Unfortunately for them, the names that Martin’s article mentions should give anyone wanting to see a Democratic victory in 2020 cause for concern- as they display a startling lack of self-awareness or even detachment from reality itself among some of the most influential figures in Democratic politics.

On the surface, it would seem as if establishment-minded party supporters would already have their candidate- Joe Biden ticks all the boxes on paper. A longtime Senator and Vice President to a popular former President currently leading in national polling should be an easy sell. And yet, the article quotes top party figures citing his relatively lackluster fundraising as a major concern. These sorts of comments come off as facetious for one reason: many of those described in the article as concerned about this are top donors themselves! If they like Biden and are just concerned about his fundraising ability, they have a very obvious means of rectifiying that problem. Reading between the lines, Biden’s fundraising issues are a fig leaf for other concerns, whether it be age, issues with his son Hunter’s being a figure in the unfolding Ukraine scandals, or other issues. So, who then do these people want to fill the void?

Martin’s article cites several names that are apparently being discussed in top Democratic circles, and the names on offer betray a closed-in, groupthink mentality among party luminaries. Michael Bloomberg is mentioned- his name seems to come up every election cycle in “sensible” liberal and centrist circles- the kind of sensible that gets universal nods and murmurs of approval over cocktails at a Manhattan soiree or Silicon Valley corporate retreat, without any heed paid to the fact that away from affulent coastal enclaves, Bloomberg is widely detested by real people across the political spectrum. One could say the same about the other names on the list- Hillary Clinton again, really? John Kerry? Does anyone remember how those two performed when last on the national campaign stage? Eric Holder? If there was a potential candidate alive who would be a more dream matchup for the “populist” Trump than the previous three, it would be the former Attorney General best known (fairly on unfairly) for not prosecuting a single banker after the 2008 financial crisis. Michelle Obama? She is well-liked, but has never at any point showed any interest in elected office.

The fact of the matter is, the Democratic party establishment finds itself in a quandary similar to that which the Republican establishment found themselves in back in 2012. Although he ultimately received their backing against insurgent challengers such as Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney was only endorsed reluctantly by major GOP power brokers. Prior to that, they canvassed a variety of other GOP officeholders, hoping to entice them into the race, names such as Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, then-Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, and others. Those names share much in common with the Democrats discussed in Martin’s piece- gold-plated resumes, sound great when conversing in donor class circles, with little heed paid to how they would play outside the fundraising circuit. This was laid bare for all to see, as Christie and Bush would prove to be nothing but two more tiny sand castles for the Trump wave to sweep away in 2016.

Ultimately, it feels as though the Democratic nomination this year will go to a candidate that the Democratic establishment feels it has to back, although reluctantly. Biden leads in the polls now, but if he falters, it is likely that an uneasy coalescing of forces behind Elizabeth Warren will take place. Warren can satisfy many of the demands of those in the party who want more bold, sweeping policy changes such as Medicare for All, which Warren has now signed on to support. Ultimately, however, Warren will be embraced as the more palatable alternative to the radicalism of Bernie Sanders; in 2016, she endorsed Hillary Clinton to the dissappointment of many who hoped she would back Sanders, for example. Indeed, Warren’s excellent fundraising numbers, including from top Silicon Valley sources, suggest that this alignment is already under way.

The hoped-for “saviors” discussed in Martin’s article will all stay out (to their credit, the piece implies that most of them seem to have more self-awareness about their shortcomings than their would-be boosters, especially John Kerry), but that will serve to allow the Democratic establishment to persist in the illusion that their favorites are those of either the public at large or their base of primary voters. The donors and party leaders in this article will be able to persist in their illusions for at least several more months, if not several more years, if Warren is able to defeat the increasingly unpopular Trump in 2020. If that takes place, there will be a collective sigh of relief (not entirely undeserved), and a sense of some kind of return to political normalcy. But the underlying issues that have led the voters of both parties to seek out alternatives to the status quo will, if this article is any indication, persist mostly unaddressed. The sands will continue to shift under the Democratic establishment’s feet until, like the Republican establishment before them, there will come a time when events expose just how out of touch they have become.