Democratic Primary World Cup, Third Round

This is the third group stage matches up for our Democratic Primary World Cup. Everyone is invited to vote in the poll. Feel free to add comments about why you chose one of these candidates over the other one.

I’ve combined these into one massive poll. Please vote for one candidate in each pair, or else you will effectively cancel your other vote.

Harris vs Warren and Booker vs Sanders were very difficult for me. Went with Kamala and Bernie. The rest were relatively straight forward for me.

I’ve said it elsewhere but I’ll say it here too. Inslee could emerge as the dark horse. If he can be convincing/semi-charismatic in his presentation of addressing climate change as a unifying driver of a lot of other issues, it might work. Plus, he’s a governor of a progressive state with some staunchly conservative elements. He has brought people together and made things work in his state. Downside, he can come across as a bit gawky.

Honestly, though I don’t have a genuine favorite I’m leaning more in his direction these days. Mostly it’s addition by subtraction. His bonafides look solid and he has fewer negatives for me than most or all of the others.

But I agree that’s he’s a dark horse at best at this point. I don’t really expect him to break through.

Prediction: Warren-Harris is a preview of the final.

I want Bullock and Hickenlooper to both drop out and run for Senate.

And I’d really like Inslee to go another round.

Well Bullock is looking like he won’t even qualify for the debates, so maybe he’ll reconsider a Senate run?

Biden vs. O’Rourke is no contest, Biden.
Guy I’ve never heard of is better than Gabbard, because everyone is better than Gabbard.
Sanders is my overall favorite.
I went with Inslee over Klobuchar mostly because of the “mean boss” rumors. Whether they’re true or not, they’ll likely hurt her electibility.
Buttigieg’s tiny bit of relevant experience beats Yang’s complete lack of relevant experience.
The two mountain governors I consider equally qualified and about equally likely to win the general, so I picked entirely based on policies. Hickenlooper’s seem better; Bullock lost out on the environment.
Warren, I don’t think has much chance, but I like her policies.
And I think that the Senate is a better qualification than the Cabinet, so Gillibrand.

I choose Booker over Sanders without hesitation. A little choosier with Harris over Warren, but I like the fact that she comes from a diverse state and, by default, has experience winning over different types of constituencies. Nothing against Warren - she’s a good senator.

I wish Bullock had gotten his campaign off the ground sooner. I don’t know if he’d stand a realistic chance of winning, but I sorta see him as the type who could do well in rural America and he wouldn’t have the same baggage that Biden does.

Biden’s experience beats O’Rourke’s, despite my continuing concern that Biden’s just too old. Biden over O’Rourke.

Pretty much anybody over Gabbard.

Booker over Sanders. That one’s easy.

Klobuchar over Inslee. I think there’s a lot to like about Inslee, but for now I’ll still go with Klobuchar.

Buttigieg over Yang. Again, easy. As Chronos put it, above.

Bullock over Hickenlooper. Or I might change my mind tomorrow.

Harris over Warren. At one point I would have called this a close one. Now, it’s not close IMHO. Harris for sure.

Gillibrand over Castro. I don’t know that KG will ever catch fire, but I think there’s a lot to like there. Nothing against Castro.

I lament the fact that hardly any governors are being taken seriously as candidates. We have several very good state governors in the field in Inslee, Hickenlooper, and Bullock, and they’re just not getting any attention. If the field were down to, say, 5 to 8 candidates, I’d give them a shot, but they’re just getting drowned out by more powerful presidential candidates. The only way I see any of the three making a leap forward is if the field gets a lot smaller, and fast.

My prediction is that among Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, and Tulsi Gabbard, one of these candidates will actually survive the debates and flirt with poll numbers near 5%. And it could be more than one of them. But they’re not serious candidates - or at least they shouldn’t be. I’m probably old fashioned but I really want to go back to the day and age in which having political experience was actually a prerequisite for office, and particularly having experience in an executive capacity. I wish that the pretender candidates would drop out and give up the mic for people who’ve actually had experience working with coalitions to accomplish something and not just getting social media likes and clicks.

Oops - voted Harris over Warren but I meant to vote Warren over Harris. Can I get a new ballot?

I like Harris a lot but Warren is my overall first choice.

Wow! Biden beats Beto as I post, but only by 18-16. I’m glad to see Booker edges out Bernie (though only barely).

Elizabeth Warren: She’s my heroine! I’d like to support her, but can she beat the Lie-&-Hatred Machine? (Would she make a good Prez anyway?)

I don’t know whether Liz or Kamala would do better in the campaign. Or which would be the better Prez, for that matter.

Joe vs Beto. I say no. To vote against one is to implicitly endorse the other; while there are things I like about each of them, I’m afraid neither one of them is a helpful presence in this race. Abstain.

Gabbard vs Delaney. I found out that Delaney’s a banker and a “moderate.” Here’s a lesson I need to keep reminding myself of: Don’t vote for someone you know nothing about just because you dislike or distrust another choice. (Though of course, I do like Tulsi Gabbard.) Tulsi.

Sanders vs Booker. The one with the populist movement over the unpopular corporate guy, obviously. The is not hard, people. Bernie.

Amy Klobuchar vs Jay Inslee. I had to research Inslee a little. We have not gotten good presidents from governor’s mansions, but Inslee was in Congress for six terms, and he’s kind of an environmentalist, even if he’s a “New Democrat.” I would much rather nominate a woman, but Inslee, weakly.

Buttigieg vs Yang. If I understand the rumors, both seem sort of rooted in Silicon Valley venture capital, and neither are prepared to really do the job. That said: Yang wants to give me money, Pete wants to bulldoze my house. Policy! Yang.

Bullock vs Hickenlooper. Oh, who cares? Abstain.

Harris vs Warren. Warren, Harris can be Veep or something.

Kirsten Gillibrand vs Julián Castro. Gillibrand.

(On those last two, I do think it should be a woman, ideally, and I do think Warren is the best leader for the party. I don’t want to talk bad about Harris or Castro, who might be good VP candidates.)

It’s funny to see the results at the moment. Pete Buttigieg has 31 votes at present, quite a bit ahead of the second-place candidate’s 22. Buttigieg is way ahead of Biden, way ahead of Harris, way ahead of Warren, way ahead of Sanders. Okay, Buttigieg has drawn a lot of attention, but this vote total has little to do with him and much to do with the identity of the opposition candidate–Andrew Yang, who has 3 votes. 31 to 3–not exactly a squeaker.

And that second-place vote total of 22? That’s not Sanders or Warren or Harris or Biden either, it’s John Delaney, who leads 22-7 but only because he gets to run against Gabbard in this simulation. In these matchups at least it’s not who you are so much as who you get to run against.

If I were a Republican I’d be rooting like mad for a Gabbard/Yang or Yang/Gabbard ticket, I’ll tell you that.

Right now Biden-Beto and Booker-Bernie are both 18-17 votes.

Governors who became Presidents include Bush-43, Clinton-42, Reagan-40, Carter-39, Roosevelt-32, Coolidge-30, Wilson-28, Taft-27, Roosevelt-26*, McKinley-25, Cleveland-22/24, Hayes-19, Johnson-17, Polk-11, Tyler-10, Van Buren-8, Jackson-7, Monroe-5, Jefferson-3*. (Taft governed Cuba and Phillipines; Jackson governed Florida.) There’s some good wheat among the chaff there.

OK, I stand corrected. We have mostly gotten bad Presidents from governors’ mansions, but to be fair most Presidents are disappointing, and the Roosevelts had been governors.

I still am mainly willing to back Inslee because he was in Congress for a decade. It’s not just credibility with the voters I worry about, but credibility in DC.

What’s your color-coding and bolding meant to indicate there? Recent presidents are the expected blue Democrats and red Republicans, but then you’ve got a number with no color, and early Presidents from a completely different party system in the same colors. And I don’t think they’re meant to indicate quality, because you’ve got Jackson (one of the worst Presidents) in blue and bold.