Picking the right strategy versus efficiently delivering the strategy

I rarely read the young adult site Vox but for some reason scanned If anti-Sanders Democrats were serious, they’d unite around Biden right now by Dylan Matthews. Probably because, with news this morning of Buttigieg's withdrawal from the race, the options facing the DNC are narrowing.

It is a pretty shallow piece and comes down to the argument that the establishment party is incompetent because they won't do what it takes to coalesce around an electable candidate. I don't disagree but it is not well argued.

It appears to me that the DNC is very much caught in a trap of its own making. By hitching their star to Obama's singular skill of winning elections and not tending to the institutional needs of their own party, they have ended up with a thin bench of potential candidates and a crowded field of actual candidates who do not have very compelling prospects.

We are now down to three. Warren and Klobuchar had their brief moments but never caught on and will almost certainly exit after Super Tuesday.

That leaves:

Bernie Sanders - 78-year-old self-avowed socialist with a recent and known history of heart disease; appealing strongly to 10-20% of the voting population and reviled by probably 50-60%.

Joe Biden - 78-year-old establishment candidate whose only electoral success on his own outside of his own state of Delaware, despite a 51 year political career, was this past weekend's primary victory in South Carolina. Apparent cognitive decline issues in addition to a deep trail of inappropriate family nepotism verging on corruption.

Michael Bloomberg - 78-year-old autocratic outsider with long-established policy differences from the Democratic Party and whose only advantage is the capacity to purchase an election.

I think Matthews is oversimplifying the prospects ahead for the DNC. He takes as a given that the DNC wants to block Sanders and is criticizing them for their incompetence in failing to do so. I would argue that there is a more fundamental view. They want to win and they need to choose a course of action which gives them the best prospect of winning. Their challenge is that the existing field is deeply flawed that none of the surviving candidates seem particularly viable to the general voting public.

Trump goes into the election with the economic winds behind his back, with the Republican Party pretty unified and firmly on side, and with strong appeal to independents and moderates inclined to vote their pocket books. The DNC has nothing comparable. They have a factional field appealing at best to select components of the Democratic coalition and with a high aversion rate between the factions. The Democratic voting base will likely not vote for any other than their particular choice, even in the face of their aversion to Trump.

While I have little sympathy for the DNC as an institution, characterized as they are by deep racism, sexism, anti-semitism, atheism, and corrupted by socialist thinking, I can at least acknowledge the dilemma they face. It is not an easy one to address.

Seems to me that they have six courses of action.

1) Let the process run its own course without intervention. Almost certainly results in Sanders or possibly Biden as candidates. Sanders makes sense due to the energy of his small base within the party but his standing with the general public is so toxic that he is almost certainly not a viable candidate (barring exceptional circumstances). Biden, with his thin record and establishment baggage is hardly better. Pro to this approach: They hold faith as a neutral arbiter among the factions and live to fight another day. Con: They lose the general election and fight a post-election civil war.

2) Endorse Sanders as the plurality candidate. Pro: The DNC demonstrates integrity and commitment to democracy by backing the candidate with the most concentrated support among party faithful. Con: The Bernie Bros are not widely supported within the party and reviled in the general voting population.

3) Endorse Biden as the most appealing, but probably insufficiently appealing, establishment candidate. Pro: Demonstrates an electoral pragmatism regarding candidate appeal outside the party intra-mural interests. Con: Incites division and rebellion among Sanders supporters during the general campaign and almost certainly suppresses the party turnout.

4) Endorse Bloomberg as the candidate with the deepest pockets. Pro: Money buys a lot of coverage and establishment support. Con: The tenor of the times is unsympathetic to the establishment and to autocrats.

5) Endorse Sanders but with a requirement that he pledge a POC or woman as VP to broaden the demographic base. A Harris or Warren for example. Pro: Probably the strategy most likely to get the largest number of Democrats to the general election polls. Con: Doesn't serve the DNC establishment interests. Probably drives a wedge between the party and its biggest donors. Probably moves moderates and independents further against the Democrats (particularly a solid socialist Sanders/Warren combo as an example).

6) Pick a ticket independent of the current field. Pro: Shows neutrality (none of the current candidates are compelling) with pragmatism. Con: Who are the better candidates in the wings who are more likely to win? How do you retain the disappointed supporters who, despite contrary evidence, firmly believe that their candidate can win.

Picking a winning strategy is the more fundamental need at the moment and for the above reasons a hard analysis to consider. Matthews assumes that the right answer is that they need to stop Sanders and are incompetent at doing so. I suspect that it is less about incompetence and more about the fact that there just isn't much of a clear path to victory.