The 2020 Democratic veepstakes: Because it's never too early
I saw christmas crud being sold. It's October.
I'm doing a veepstakes post. Who's gonna stop me? Hey, remember in 2016, when I called the Pence pick in April?
What have I done since then? Um... I, well... published a book, but nobody outside of academia cares about stuff like that, so here's a veepstakes blog post. How, you may ask, can I write a veepstakes post before we have a nominee? Well, I did it in 2016, so why not now?
Let's start with the nomination itself. Probably Warren. Betting right now has her it 40 cents on the dollar, and that's probably a bit under because you still have people putting money on candidates with no chance, like Yang, so let's start with Warren's likelihood as a basic observation. Of the alternatives: Biden or Sanders are the main contenders, and Buttigieg... no, but fine, I'll throw him in here. Biden has been falling, but he's not out of it, and Sanders... I've never really seen a plausible path to the nomination for him. Regardless, that's Warren and two or three white guys. However, I propose the following rule. The VP-nominee won't be a white male. Think of how much of the reaction to Biden, and even, to some degree, Sanders has been demographic. Buttigieg gets a bit of a pass on the white-male thing because he's gay, but there's still push-back within large segments of the Democratic Party because he's still... a white male. Klobuchar is trying to get "a moment," and so far, her only real moment was on the debate stage when Jay Inslee said that because he was a governor, he was the only one on stage who had actually signed legislation into law on abortion, and Klobuchar responded by turning the subject from accomplishments to simple demographics, and she got wild applause for it. It will not be a white male. If it's Warren, she'll go for someone other than a white male so that the party can tout the no-white-males ticket, which would fit with Warren's hard left-turn approach anyway, and if it's Biden or Sanders (or Buttigieg), they'd have to pick someone other than a white male because the party won't stand for an all-white-males ticket. Either way, it won't be a white male. In 2016, Clinton went with the boring and obvious choice of Tim Kaine because he was the governor of a swing state, and it was the obvious move from a politician who always played it safe. Being a woman, whatever pressure there may have been for demographic diversity on the ticket was already satisfied. There was no way she was going to pick anyone else, and anyone who had stakes in the Democratic veepstakes in 2016 who didn't bet on Kaine was a fool. Right now, it just won't be a white male.
So, where does that leave us? The first place to start, if you are a senator (Warren and Sanders) is a governor. There are really only two options, once you rule out every white male, but keep in mind the pragmatism notion of trying to appeal to a swing state. That would be either Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, or Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico. More votes in Michigan, Trump won Michigan and the Democrats can't get the White House without Michigan, so the smart money would be on Michigan. If Warren plays it that way. Lujan Grisham, though, is Latina. New Mexico is still kind of a swing state, even thought the Democrats have it more under control, but the identity politics faction of the party would push things towards Lujan Grisham. First Latina on the ticket. Would that beat out Michigan? Well, we're not done here, but like I said, the smart play is Whitmer. The Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Wolf, would normally be in contention, but he's a white male. Whitmer.
Period. The smart play is Whitmer. Solve whatever internal issues there are among the identity politics people in the party while dealing with a swing state problem. Michigan is a bigger deal than New Mexico.
That's governors, though. If the nominee where a governor, which is more historically common, the nominee might pick a senator as a running mate. Would Warren do that? That'd be weird. A two-senator-ticket would be weird. Tammy Baldwin might make an interesting choice, and the current governor of Wisconsin is a Democrat, but there isn't a sparklingly obvious choice in the Senate, even if it weren't for the fact that a two-senator-ticket is an odd idea. Harris? California is already in the bag, and the only reason to go that route would have been to see the Harris-Pence debate, but she has sort of taken the wind out of that sail on the stage lately. Not that a 10-person debate looks anything like a two-person debate, or that VP debates matter, or that debates matter, but... I don't see the motivation. (And I'll get to the other also-rans later.)
The House? Not completely unheard-of. It didn't do anything for Pierre Delecto, but there are more choices. If "the squad" weren't all freshmen, I wouldn't be surprised by Warren picking one, but Pramila Jayapal? Not a lot of upside there. However, I wouldn't rule it out! She meets the not-a-white-male rule, by both standards, and Warren's whole schtick is to go as hard-left as possible. That's Jayapal. However, there are big risks, and not a lot of electoral upside. House leadership doesn't provide a lot of good options, picking a backbencher does no good, and the twitter caucus doesn't seem to get Warren (or Sanders) anything they don't already have. I could see Biden going that route, but he'd do better to just pick Warren, assuming she'd accept.
That leaves... Stacey Abrams. Abrams would be a very weird pick because, well, she doesn't really give the nominee a state, she is a, wha'dya'callit... person who loses... um... oh, yeah, a "loser." Would she have won in a different state? Well, that sort of puts a lot on the candidate as a politician, and there's something to that. See, in particular, Jonathan Krasno's work on senate campaigns and his sophisticated measures of candidate quality. But, there's big, structural stuff too, and the structural stuff is... bigger. I, personally, don't see an upside to Abrams. She wouldn't give any nominee the state of Georgia. Trump will win Georgia after the House impeaches him and the Senate acquits him and William Barr... does... something October-surprise-y. Like James Comey, but "loyal." (Not kidding.) To the extent that Abrams has been "tested," she didn't pass the test, insanely hard though that test was (winning statewide in Georgia as a Democrat, and an African-American woman). What some Democrats will perceive as the upside of selecting her will be that she "energizes the base." That is a phrase that should be typed in caps-lock, with many exclamation points, but there isn't really any evidence of a VP nominee having that kind of effect. Moreover, whatever base she might excite is already there for Warren, or Sanders, from an ideological perspective, and there because they detest Trump. We call this "negative partisanship." Is there some benefit to nominating the first African-American woman for VP? Well, there probably wasn't a Ferraro effect in '84, but the politics were different in '84. If there was a Palin effect in '08, it was likely negative, but a) that was the GOP, and b) she was Sarah Palin, so there isn't really much evidence there. Was there significant evidence of a female nominee effect from having Clinton on the ticket at the top in 2016? It's hard to separate her being a woman from her being Hillary Clinton, given who she was, so... Insufficient data, as I see it. But, that doesn't mean a presidential nominee won't think there's a possible benefit, and that's really what this is about.
Could Warren think she has something to gain by putting Abrams on the ticket to "energize the base?" Yes. Yes she could. And I doubt she'd pick a white male. The demographic play works for her hard-left campaign and the current direction of the Democratic Party. Abrams, for whatever reason, has buzz. For Warren, it'll come down to Whitmer, Lujan Grisham, and Abrams. Whitmer is the smart, conventional play. Between Lujan Grisham and Abrams, Lujan Grisham makes more sense. There will be pressure, though, to pick Abrams, and Warren's campaign schtick is more aligned with the Abrams thing. Those are the names to watch right now. What happens? If Warren starts to lock up the nomination, we watch her moves. Any moves towards institutional politics would indicate movement towards a Whitmer or Lujan Grisham type selection. If she keeps going with the campaign based on the idea that there is this magic word called "fighting" that overcomes basic arithmetic, then she throws out all electoral calculations that would aid in an attempt at victory and picks Abrams to brag about the demographics of the ticket.
That's Warren.
What if Biden pulled a Lazarus? He could sort of have an incentive to pick Abrams. His default choice would be Warren. He has a problem with the liberal base, and if he beats the current hero of the liberal base, shore that up by offering the VP slot to their candidate. That's one of the standard political maneuvers after a bruising primary. The Democratic nominee will win Massachusetts no matter what, but if Biden thinks that he needs to make strong overtures to the left, then he asks Warren to take the VP slot. Does she do it? If she thinks Trump is going to lose, then yes. Biden could die any day now. Sorrynotsorry, but it's true. If he dies before the election, she's the nominee. If Biden wins and then dies, she takes the oath of office. And there's no reason to run in the first place if she doesn't think that Trump can be beaten. She might say no, but there are incentives to say yes, depending on whether or not one thinks that Biden is doing the Elizabeth Bathory thing, and bathing in the blood of youth in an attempt at immortality.
What? He's all about reaching across the aisle, and he learned the secrets from Dick Cheney. What do you think was really going on with that eye? Think about it!
Anyway, though, if Warren said no, Biden would then have an incentive to move on to Abrams for the same reason. He can't pick a white male, and he really at least thinks he needs to shore up that base. If he could avoid his habit of smelling women's hair or... (yeah, we gotta think about this) touching her hair in a "Biden moment," he could, perhaps, try to heal some rifts with an Abrams pick. I'd see Abrams as a real solution to Biden's problems. Just... don't... touch... her... hair.
What about Lujan Grisham or Whitmer for Biden? Biden at least thinks he has some rust belt "cred" because of the "Scranton" thing, so he'd probably discount Whitmer, and between Lujan Grisham and Abrams, Biden would probably look for the symbolic pick, given his current weakness with the left.
Sanders? As I said, he's unlikely to get the nomination, but if he does, there's no way he thinks electorally. Warren is a possibility because they are currently spending the campaign trying to out-left each other, but otherwise, he just tries to find the left-iest lefty on the left. He could even pick a House backbencher. There's no strategic calculation beyond that, but Warren would be his likeliest choice because she is ideologically compatible and strategically useless.
Buttigieg? Unlikely nominee, but to recap... he's a white male. If he beats Warren, there's an incentive, but Warren could say no without the belief that the young, healthy guy will drop dead. She may not want to play second fiddle to him, and that whole thing just may not work. Take Warren out of that picture and we're back to Abrams, Lujan Grisham and Whitmer. How strategic is Buttigieg? Bluntly, I think he's the smartest of the current "plausible" candidates, and it ain't close, but don't worry. I'm still me, and I've got my gripes with everyone. Whitmer. He'll lose, which in Bayesian terms, doesn't bring up Whitmer's chances that much, but I think Buttigieg could figure it out, or at least, that he's more capable of figuring out the benefit of Whitmer over Abrams than the rest of the... well, never mind.
So there it is. Warren's smart choice is Whitmer, with a back-up of Lujan Grisham, but she gets at least tempted by Abrams. I don't know at this point. Watch as things progress. Biden tries for Warren, and if she says no, Abrams. Sanders... I don't even know if it's worth speculating, but either Warren, or one of the House far lefties. Hell, he might even actually pick Jayapal, or one of "the squad," for all of the phenomenal stupidity. Not that Sanders really has much of a chance, but it's fun to speculate. Buttigieg-- more likely Whitmer, or Lujan Grisham, but Abrams is still in the mix.
As far as how this balances out, let's do some totally hypothetical, out of my lower digestive tract math. Let's say Warren has a 60% chance at the nomination, and she has a 40% chance of picking Abrams. That would mean, hypothetically, a 24% chance of a Warren-Abrams ticket. Let's say there's also a 10% chance of Biden, and he has a 50% chance of picking Abrams. That means a 5% chance of a Biden-Abrams ticket. So far, we'd be up to a 29% chance of Abrams, and we wouldn't be done yet. Let's say Sanders has a 10% chance of getting the nomination and a 30% chance of picking Abrams. That'd be a 3% chance of Sanders-Abrams. We're up to 32% for Abrams by some means. Then, if Buttigieg has a 10% chance of getting the nomination and a 20% chance of picking Abrams, we'd have a 2% chance of Buttigieg-Abrams. Add in 2% more, and we're up to a total of 34% for the chance of Abrams. Totally made-up, but that's how the math would work. The chances of Warren, Abrams, Lujan Grisham and Whitmer-- the ones I'm watching right now-- vary not just by the general politics, but by the chances of the candidates themselves. After all, Warren would be a likely VP nominee... if she doesn't get the nomination! But, she won't be both the nominee and the VP nominee, obviously. This stuff is all conditional.
So... I jotted down a bunch of notes for that before looking at the betting. Here's the betting as of this morning. A few things to note. First, Abrams. Yeah, she's up front. Not the right choice strategically, but she's a real contender, and if you are placing bets, it's not necessarily a stupid bet. Beyond that, the bets being placed right now are stupid. But, they are also very low values. Look at what's happening. People as of this morning, October 26, are just placing low figures (Abrams is the highest, at 14 cents on the dollar) on the other candidates. Warren at only six cents? Part of that is that she is so likely to be the nominee, but... the thing is that if she isn't the nominee, she is a likely VP nominee! Bad gamblers! No endorphins for you! Look, folks. O'Rourke is not going to be the VP nominee, and I don't care that Klobuchar or Booker technically meet the not-white-males rule. They aren't going to be selected. This is just people putting low values on names they know because they aren't thinking through the politics of what actually happens.
And which names are absent? Lujan Grisham and Whitmer.
Instead we have Sherrod Brown? In another time, maybe. But, he's a white male, and Ohio has a Republican governor, so a victory means giving up a Democratic seat in the Senate. Ain't happenin', when there's Whitmer right next door. Harris hasn't shown enough on the debate stage. Gabbard?! Seriously?! People are putting money on her? (I mean, besides Putin and Assad...) Castro, not white, but Texas? Lost cause. Anyone thinking about a not-a-white-male from a state that's a lost cause anyway will wind up with Stacey Abrams. Put Castro on a stage and watch him. Put Abrams on a stage, and watch her. Abrams wins that contest and neither bring a state to the game. Booker? Why? New Jersey? A Democrat who can't win New Jersey is toast anyway, and the general Democratic position here is... Obama. Been there, done that. Yes, he's not a white male, but there's been an African-American male, and Obama outclassed Booker. Here. Listen to Miles Davis. Now, how's about a high school jazz band recital? (Sorrynotsorry, Cory.) The only other name up there that makes any sense is Buttigieg, who could make sense.
I didn't include him because he fails the not-a-white-male rule. Does he get a pass on the VP slot for being gay? Neither Biden nor Sanders could pick him. Period. Warren? The problem is experience. That's going to be the knock on him. He isn't ready for the job. Yes, Republicans will make that argument with a straight face. And... he's... not. And this brings us to the comparison. If you're going that route, Buttigieg or... Abrams? If you are picking someone who doesn't have conventional presidential credentials, would Warren see Buttigieg as her choice, or Abrams? Neither give her a state, since she won't win either Georgia or Indiana. White male (but gay), versus African-American woman with better credentials?
Warren might pick him. I can't rule it out. I don't think it is a smart pick, I don't think it gets her anything, and in terms of how a strategic actor would rank things, it would go: Whitmer, Lujan Grisham, Abrams, Buttigieg. And, we could collapse the categories. The top two choices are one category, within which Whitmer is a better choice, and the bottom two choices are one category, within which Abrams is probably a better choice, but that's harder because neither are astonishingly good choices. (Keeping in mind that the VP nominee doesn't really matter all that much, so this whole post is kind of silly anyway!)
Mostly, there's attention on Buttigieg because... there's attention on him. It only really makes sense, though, to the extent that a rift develops within the party between Warren and Buttigieg that she thinks she needs to heal, but that isn't ideologically incompatible with her all-hard-left-all-the-time approach.
Anyway, though, the issue with the betting markets right now is that they're just focusing on the names. There's something to keep in mind about prediction markets, though. They are often quite good, but they do contain a bias. They overestimate the likelihood of unlikely events. Why? In the case of unlikely events, the only people betting money are the ones who are "risk acceptant," in economic terms. Or... just... gamblers.
You know, like the kind of people who would put six cents on the dollar that Tulsi Gabbassad will be the Democratic vice presidential nominee.
So, anyway. My general point is that in addition to the race itself, and Warren, watch...yeah, Abrams, and Michelle Lujan Grisham and Gretchen Whitmer.
OK, so now it's time to take down the christmas lights and hide some easter eggs. What? It's like, October, or something. Have you been in a store lately? This is why Amazon is taking over everything-- so that curmudgeons like me don't have to start looking at christmas decorations in bloody October!
So, are we ready to speculate about 2024 yet?
I'm doing a veepstakes post. Who's gonna stop me? Hey, remember in 2016, when I called the Pence pick in April?
What have I done since then? Um... I, well... published a book, but nobody outside of academia cares about stuff like that, so here's a veepstakes blog post. How, you may ask, can I write a veepstakes post before we have a nominee? Well, I did it in 2016, so why not now?
Let's start with the nomination itself. Probably Warren. Betting right now has her it 40 cents on the dollar, and that's probably a bit under because you still have people putting money on candidates with no chance, like Yang, so let's start with Warren's likelihood as a basic observation. Of the alternatives: Biden or Sanders are the main contenders, and Buttigieg... no, but fine, I'll throw him in here. Biden has been falling, but he's not out of it, and Sanders... I've never really seen a plausible path to the nomination for him. Regardless, that's Warren and two or three white guys. However, I propose the following rule. The VP-nominee won't be a white male. Think of how much of the reaction to Biden, and even, to some degree, Sanders has been demographic. Buttigieg gets a bit of a pass on the white-male thing because he's gay, but there's still push-back within large segments of the Democratic Party because he's still... a white male. Klobuchar is trying to get "a moment," and so far, her only real moment was on the debate stage when Jay Inslee said that because he was a governor, he was the only one on stage who had actually signed legislation into law on abortion, and Klobuchar responded by turning the subject from accomplishments to simple demographics, and she got wild applause for it. It will not be a white male. If it's Warren, she'll go for someone other than a white male so that the party can tout the no-white-males ticket, which would fit with Warren's hard left-turn approach anyway, and if it's Biden or Sanders (or Buttigieg), they'd have to pick someone other than a white male because the party won't stand for an all-white-males ticket. Either way, it won't be a white male. In 2016, Clinton went with the boring and obvious choice of Tim Kaine because he was the governor of a swing state, and it was the obvious move from a politician who always played it safe. Being a woman, whatever pressure there may have been for demographic diversity on the ticket was already satisfied. There was no way she was going to pick anyone else, and anyone who had stakes in the Democratic veepstakes in 2016 who didn't bet on Kaine was a fool. Right now, it just won't be a white male.
So, where does that leave us? The first place to start, if you are a senator (Warren and Sanders) is a governor. There are really only two options, once you rule out every white male, but keep in mind the pragmatism notion of trying to appeal to a swing state. That would be either Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, or Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico. More votes in Michigan, Trump won Michigan and the Democrats can't get the White House without Michigan, so the smart money would be on Michigan. If Warren plays it that way. Lujan Grisham, though, is Latina. New Mexico is still kind of a swing state, even thought the Democrats have it more under control, but the identity politics faction of the party would push things towards Lujan Grisham. First Latina on the ticket. Would that beat out Michigan? Well, we're not done here, but like I said, the smart play is Whitmer. The Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Wolf, would normally be in contention, but he's a white male. Whitmer.
Period. The smart play is Whitmer. Solve whatever internal issues there are among the identity politics people in the party while dealing with a swing state problem. Michigan is a bigger deal than New Mexico.
That's governors, though. If the nominee where a governor, which is more historically common, the nominee might pick a senator as a running mate. Would Warren do that? That'd be weird. A two-senator-ticket would be weird. Tammy Baldwin might make an interesting choice, and the current governor of Wisconsin is a Democrat, but there isn't a sparklingly obvious choice in the Senate, even if it weren't for the fact that a two-senator-ticket is an odd idea. Harris? California is already in the bag, and the only reason to go that route would have been to see the Harris-Pence debate, but she has sort of taken the wind out of that sail on the stage lately. Not that a 10-person debate looks anything like a two-person debate, or that VP debates matter, or that debates matter, but... I don't see the motivation. (And I'll get to the other also-rans later.)
The House? Not completely unheard-of. It didn't do anything for Pierre Delecto, but there are more choices. If "the squad" weren't all freshmen, I wouldn't be surprised by Warren picking one, but Pramila Jayapal? Not a lot of upside there. However, I wouldn't rule it out! She meets the not-a-white-male rule, by both standards, and Warren's whole schtick is to go as hard-left as possible. That's Jayapal. However, there are big risks, and not a lot of electoral upside. House leadership doesn't provide a lot of good options, picking a backbencher does no good, and the twitter caucus doesn't seem to get Warren (or Sanders) anything they don't already have. I could see Biden going that route, but he'd do better to just pick Warren, assuming she'd accept.
That leaves... Stacey Abrams. Abrams would be a very weird pick because, well, she doesn't really give the nominee a state, she is a, wha'dya'callit... person who loses... um... oh, yeah, a "loser." Would she have won in a different state? Well, that sort of puts a lot on the candidate as a politician, and there's something to that. See, in particular, Jonathan Krasno's work on senate campaigns and his sophisticated measures of candidate quality. But, there's big, structural stuff too, and the structural stuff is... bigger. I, personally, don't see an upside to Abrams. She wouldn't give any nominee the state of Georgia. Trump will win Georgia after the House impeaches him and the Senate acquits him and William Barr... does... something October-surprise-y. Like James Comey, but "loyal." (Not kidding.) To the extent that Abrams has been "tested," she didn't pass the test, insanely hard though that test was (winning statewide in Georgia as a Democrat, and an African-American woman). What some Democrats will perceive as the upside of selecting her will be that she "energizes the base." That is a phrase that should be typed in caps-lock, with many exclamation points, but there isn't really any evidence of a VP nominee having that kind of effect. Moreover, whatever base she might excite is already there for Warren, or Sanders, from an ideological perspective, and there because they detest Trump. We call this "negative partisanship." Is there some benefit to nominating the first African-American woman for VP? Well, there probably wasn't a Ferraro effect in '84, but the politics were different in '84. If there was a Palin effect in '08, it was likely negative, but a) that was the GOP, and b) she was Sarah Palin, so there isn't really much evidence there. Was there significant evidence of a female nominee effect from having Clinton on the ticket at the top in 2016? It's hard to separate her being a woman from her being Hillary Clinton, given who she was, so... Insufficient data, as I see it. But, that doesn't mean a presidential nominee won't think there's a possible benefit, and that's really what this is about.
Could Warren think she has something to gain by putting Abrams on the ticket to "energize the base?" Yes. Yes she could. And I doubt she'd pick a white male. The demographic play works for her hard-left campaign and the current direction of the Democratic Party. Abrams, for whatever reason, has buzz. For Warren, it'll come down to Whitmer, Lujan Grisham, and Abrams. Whitmer is the smart, conventional play. Between Lujan Grisham and Abrams, Lujan Grisham makes more sense. There will be pressure, though, to pick Abrams, and Warren's campaign schtick is more aligned with the Abrams thing. Those are the names to watch right now. What happens? If Warren starts to lock up the nomination, we watch her moves. Any moves towards institutional politics would indicate movement towards a Whitmer or Lujan Grisham type selection. If she keeps going with the campaign based on the idea that there is this magic word called "fighting" that overcomes basic arithmetic, then she throws out all electoral calculations that would aid in an attempt at victory and picks Abrams to brag about the demographics of the ticket.
That's Warren.
What if Biden pulled a Lazarus? He could sort of have an incentive to pick Abrams. His default choice would be Warren. He has a problem with the liberal base, and if he beats the current hero of the liberal base, shore that up by offering the VP slot to their candidate. That's one of the standard political maneuvers after a bruising primary. The Democratic nominee will win Massachusetts no matter what, but if Biden thinks that he needs to make strong overtures to the left, then he asks Warren to take the VP slot. Does she do it? If she thinks Trump is going to lose, then yes. Biden could die any day now. Sorrynotsorry, but it's true. If he dies before the election, she's the nominee. If Biden wins and then dies, she takes the oath of office. And there's no reason to run in the first place if she doesn't think that Trump can be beaten. She might say no, but there are incentives to say yes, depending on whether or not one thinks that Biden is doing the Elizabeth Bathory thing, and bathing in the blood of youth in an attempt at immortality.
What? He's all about reaching across the aisle, and he learned the secrets from Dick Cheney. What do you think was really going on with that eye? Think about it!
Anyway, though, if Warren said no, Biden would then have an incentive to move on to Abrams for the same reason. He can't pick a white male, and he really at least thinks he needs to shore up that base. If he could avoid his habit of smelling women's hair or... (yeah, we gotta think about this) touching her hair in a "Biden moment," he could, perhaps, try to heal some rifts with an Abrams pick. I'd see Abrams as a real solution to Biden's problems. Just... don't... touch... her... hair.
What about Lujan Grisham or Whitmer for Biden? Biden at least thinks he has some rust belt "cred" because of the "Scranton" thing, so he'd probably discount Whitmer, and between Lujan Grisham and Abrams, Biden would probably look for the symbolic pick, given his current weakness with the left.
Sanders? As I said, he's unlikely to get the nomination, but if he does, there's no way he thinks electorally. Warren is a possibility because they are currently spending the campaign trying to out-left each other, but otherwise, he just tries to find the left-iest lefty on the left. He could even pick a House backbencher. There's no strategic calculation beyond that, but Warren would be his likeliest choice because she is ideologically compatible and strategically useless.
Buttigieg? Unlikely nominee, but to recap... he's a white male. If he beats Warren, there's an incentive, but Warren could say no without the belief that the young, healthy guy will drop dead. She may not want to play second fiddle to him, and that whole thing just may not work. Take Warren out of that picture and we're back to Abrams, Lujan Grisham and Whitmer. How strategic is Buttigieg? Bluntly, I think he's the smartest of the current "plausible" candidates, and it ain't close, but don't worry. I'm still me, and I've got my gripes with everyone. Whitmer. He'll lose, which in Bayesian terms, doesn't bring up Whitmer's chances that much, but I think Buttigieg could figure it out, or at least, that he's more capable of figuring out the benefit of Whitmer over Abrams than the rest of the... well, never mind.
So there it is. Warren's smart choice is Whitmer, with a back-up of Lujan Grisham, but she gets at least tempted by Abrams. I don't know at this point. Watch as things progress. Biden tries for Warren, and if she says no, Abrams. Sanders... I don't even know if it's worth speculating, but either Warren, or one of the House far lefties. Hell, he might even actually pick Jayapal, or one of "the squad," for all of the phenomenal stupidity. Not that Sanders really has much of a chance, but it's fun to speculate. Buttigieg-- more likely Whitmer, or Lujan Grisham, but Abrams is still in the mix.
As far as how this balances out, let's do some totally hypothetical, out of my lower digestive tract math. Let's say Warren has a 60% chance at the nomination, and she has a 40% chance of picking Abrams. That would mean, hypothetically, a 24% chance of a Warren-Abrams ticket. Let's say there's also a 10% chance of Biden, and he has a 50% chance of picking Abrams. That means a 5% chance of a Biden-Abrams ticket. So far, we'd be up to a 29% chance of Abrams, and we wouldn't be done yet. Let's say Sanders has a 10% chance of getting the nomination and a 30% chance of picking Abrams. That'd be a 3% chance of Sanders-Abrams. We're up to 32% for Abrams by some means. Then, if Buttigieg has a 10% chance of getting the nomination and a 20% chance of picking Abrams, we'd have a 2% chance of Buttigieg-Abrams. Add in 2% more, and we're up to a total of 34% for the chance of Abrams. Totally made-up, but that's how the math would work. The chances of Warren, Abrams, Lujan Grisham and Whitmer-- the ones I'm watching right now-- vary not just by the general politics, but by the chances of the candidates themselves. After all, Warren would be a likely VP nominee... if she doesn't get the nomination! But, she won't be both the nominee and the VP nominee, obviously. This stuff is all conditional.
So... I jotted down a bunch of notes for that before looking at the betting. Here's the betting as of this morning. A few things to note. First, Abrams. Yeah, she's up front. Not the right choice strategically, but she's a real contender, and if you are placing bets, it's not necessarily a stupid bet. Beyond that, the bets being placed right now are stupid. But, they are also very low values. Look at what's happening. People as of this morning, October 26, are just placing low figures (Abrams is the highest, at 14 cents on the dollar) on the other candidates. Warren at only six cents? Part of that is that she is so likely to be the nominee, but... the thing is that if she isn't the nominee, she is a likely VP nominee! Bad gamblers! No endorphins for you! Look, folks. O'Rourke is not going to be the VP nominee, and I don't care that Klobuchar or Booker technically meet the not-white-males rule. They aren't going to be selected. This is just people putting low values on names they know because they aren't thinking through the politics of what actually happens.
And which names are absent? Lujan Grisham and Whitmer.
Instead we have Sherrod Brown? In another time, maybe. But, he's a white male, and Ohio has a Republican governor, so a victory means giving up a Democratic seat in the Senate. Ain't happenin', when there's Whitmer right next door. Harris hasn't shown enough on the debate stage. Gabbard?! Seriously?! People are putting money on her? (I mean, besides Putin and Assad...) Castro, not white, but Texas? Lost cause. Anyone thinking about a not-a-white-male from a state that's a lost cause anyway will wind up with Stacey Abrams. Put Castro on a stage and watch him. Put Abrams on a stage, and watch her. Abrams wins that contest and neither bring a state to the game. Booker? Why? New Jersey? A Democrat who can't win New Jersey is toast anyway, and the general Democratic position here is... Obama. Been there, done that. Yes, he's not a white male, but there's been an African-American male, and Obama outclassed Booker. Here. Listen to Miles Davis. Now, how's about a high school jazz band recital? (Sorrynotsorry, Cory.) The only other name up there that makes any sense is Buttigieg, who could make sense.
I didn't include him because he fails the not-a-white-male rule. Does he get a pass on the VP slot for being gay? Neither Biden nor Sanders could pick him. Period. Warren? The problem is experience. That's going to be the knock on him. He isn't ready for the job. Yes, Republicans will make that argument with a straight face. And... he's... not. And this brings us to the comparison. If you're going that route, Buttigieg or... Abrams? If you are picking someone who doesn't have conventional presidential credentials, would Warren see Buttigieg as her choice, or Abrams? Neither give her a state, since she won't win either Georgia or Indiana. White male (but gay), versus African-American woman with better credentials?
Warren might pick him. I can't rule it out. I don't think it is a smart pick, I don't think it gets her anything, and in terms of how a strategic actor would rank things, it would go: Whitmer, Lujan Grisham, Abrams, Buttigieg. And, we could collapse the categories. The top two choices are one category, within which Whitmer is a better choice, and the bottom two choices are one category, within which Abrams is probably a better choice, but that's harder because neither are astonishingly good choices. (Keeping in mind that the VP nominee doesn't really matter all that much, so this whole post is kind of silly anyway!)
Mostly, there's attention on Buttigieg because... there's attention on him. It only really makes sense, though, to the extent that a rift develops within the party between Warren and Buttigieg that she thinks she needs to heal, but that isn't ideologically incompatible with her all-hard-left-all-the-time approach.
Anyway, though, the issue with the betting markets right now is that they're just focusing on the names. There's something to keep in mind about prediction markets, though. They are often quite good, but they do contain a bias. They overestimate the likelihood of unlikely events. Why? In the case of unlikely events, the only people betting money are the ones who are "risk acceptant," in economic terms. Or... just... gamblers.
You know, like the kind of people who would put six cents on the dollar that Tulsi Gabbassad will be the Democratic vice presidential nominee.
So, anyway. My general point is that in addition to the race itself, and Warren, watch...yeah, Abrams, and Michelle Lujan Grisham and Gretchen Whitmer.
OK, so now it's time to take down the christmas lights and hide some easter eggs. What? It's like, October, or something. Have you been in a store lately? This is why Amazon is taking over everything-- so that curmudgeons like me don't have to start looking at christmas decorations in bloody October!
So, are we ready to speculate about 2024 yet?
Comments
Post a Comment