Few things were more galling to me this week than reading a New York Times piece in which uppity Democratic donors and establishment types survey the 2020 field and wonder, "Is there anybody else?"
What they really mean is: Is there a surer bet than Joe Biden to whom they can funnel money with assurances of getting a solidly pro-Wall Street, pro-Washington Democratic nominee?
“Since the last debate, just anecdotally, I’ve had five or six people ask me: ‘Is there anybody else?’” Leah Daughtry, who has run two of the party’s recent conventions, told the Times. For context, Daughtry is a reverend who doesn't exactly have the most progressive background. She played a central role in Howard Dean's mid-aughts plan to inject more "faith" into the Democratic party back when some Democrats believed peeling off a small slice of evangelicals from Republicans was the holy grail of electoral politics. In a 2008-era deposition, Daughtry also defined marriage as being between "one man and one woman.” So she's a party insider who generally leans conservative unless she's gone through some radical transformation.
So-called establishment Democrats—high-dollar donors and party insiders—reportedly have issues with basically all the top candidates. Vice President Joe Biden, who would surely be their top choice, isn't performing well enough in either the debates or fundraising. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is too lefty, they say, to win the general election (not to mention the fact that the animating feature of her campaign is crushing the corrupting influence of money in politics). South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg's base of support is simply too white (that's actually true) and they worry he won't be able to appeal more broadly to Democrats' all-important base of voters of color. They apparently didn't bother skewering Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders; perhaps the idea of nominating a democratic socialist was just too unthinkable.
But the fact of the matter is, these are the candidates that have either risen to the top or maintained a level of front-runner status at this stage of the campaign. It's not like there haven't been an array of options—women, men, people of color and differing sexual orientation, East Coasters, Left Coasters, folks from the heartland. It's all been there. But the special establishment snowflakes still aren't satisfied. Who, you ask, might excite them? Maybe beloved Michelle Obama or staunchly pro-union Midwesterner Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio. How about another billionaire, Michael Bloomberg? Or, I kid you not, the very person who was leading the polls the last time the Democratic establishment fretted over the field in 2016: Hillary Clinton. Nothing against Clinton, but consider the logic here: Last go round she was a source of concern but suddenly this time she's a savior? Seriously, who are these jokers?
It's not like the bellyaching was confined to the Times either, the Washington Post had its own version of the story. John Coale, a major donor to the Clintons, bluntly told the Post, “They don’t have anybody who can win the general." Because apparently Coale's crystal ball is the best that money can buy. Coale, by the way, supported then-Sen. Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary, Sen. John McCain in the ‘08 general election, and in 2016 was an early backer of Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. So, ya know, not exactly a whiz at this stuff.
Former Maryland congressman and 2020 candidate John Delaney, who has struggled to get traction, complained that the DNC’s high threshold for grassroots donors as a criteria for making the debate stage gave "candidates who are already well known or have base-pleasing views . . . a massive advantage," according to the Post. Hard to top that bogus argument. Well-known candidates would start with an advantage under any system the DNC created. It’s unavoidable. But Delaney apparently wanted a system that both leveled the playing field for lesser-known candidates like him while simultaneously disadvantaging candidates who hold positions that actually appeal to a majority of Democratic voters. The whole point of good candidates is that they ultimately manage to make an appealing case to the broadest swath of voters. If one hasn’t been able to make the conversion, that's likely not a systemic problem.
But whatever high-dollar donors, high-ranking officials, and some disgruntled candidates think, Democratic voters have expressed a high level of satisfaction with the field. Polls conducted in the last several months by both Gallup and Pew Research Center show that Democratic voters are more satisfied with the primary field that at any time in the last several decades. Satisfaction rates are also basically on a par with the second-most satisfactory primary in recent cycles in Democratic voters' views, 2007-2008. Here's what Gallup found last month compared to previous primary cycles.
Gallup's results were strikingly similar to the findings of Pew in July.
The chronological ordering of Pew's chart also brings into relief the fact that this year's satisfaction rate of 65% is almost exactly as pleasing to Democratic voters as that of the '08 field at 64%—and that was a pretty good cycle for Democrats.
The Washington establishment appears to be most upset by the fact that their chosen candidate, Biden, isn't running a particularly muscular campaign; and their moderately lefty runner ups, California Sen. Kamala Harris or maybe former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, have failed to catch fire. In some ways, the establishment appears to be a victim of its own success. If it hadn't coalesced around Biden so quickly—insisting he was the most electable candidate before the field even had a chance to blossom—perhaps there would have been more room for a candidate whose instincts were more moderate while still having left-of-center appeal. Instead, establishment fervor for Biden appears to have crippled the chances of moderates who might have generated enthusiasm among a wider range of the base.
But ultimately, establishment Democrats and major donors seem to be bemoaning the fact that they don’t have more unilateral control over the outcome of the primary. And frankly, that’s a good thing. Over the last couple decades, the Democratic party has simply gotten too disconnected from the basic needs and concerns of voters on the ground. Sweeping grassroots appeal is, in fact, the strength of the Democratic party and it should be embraced not shunned. It's the electoral backbone of the party. And allowing more people, not less, to be involved in shaping the party's direction is a profoundly democratic ideal that Democrats should wholeheartedly embrace.