The Democratic presidential candidates '20
On Nov. 9, 2016, Democrats were horrified. Donald Trump, in a perverse subversion of all political projections, had won the presidential election. Any Democratic fortifications within the government seemed to dissolve with the population’s vote, a steep plunge into cataclysmic conservatism.
Ever since this political tragedy, a sense of malaise, compounded with mounting fears for the future, have consumed the party. Propelled by a resolve to defeat Trump, the Democrats have writhed in indecision about which candidate to choose, affronted with the eternal liberal dichotomy: progressivism versus moderation.
An apt microcosm of the Democrats’ progressing unease finds itself in Iowa, the intensely contested rural state in middle America. The small state is the first one to solidify its varying support for the candidates in the Democrat primaries, holding only about one percent of the stake. Yet, their decision carries a swollen importance, as a preliminary study on which candidate is the most “electable.”
“Electability” has been of paramount importance for the majority of the party. Shaken by the 2016 election, Democrats have been searching for an Obama-esque candidate, someone charming, inspiring and, most importantly, rallying. Their resounding objective is to defeat Trump, with his staunchly loyal supporters. Every 2020 presidential candidate has been barraged with the question “Could you defeat Trump?”
Some have been challenged with the question more than others. Joe Biden, for one, has asserted that he could defeat Trump with ease. He brandishes name recognition, an impressionable political longevity and folksy moderation. Other candidates have marketed themselves on their moderation as well, like the compromising Amy Klobushar. With a tempered cadence to their voice, moderates believe they can gently steer the greater population toward the Democratic party, triumphing over Trump.
The progressive faction of the party has been more assailed by “electability.” Bernie Sanders, especially, is seen as an uncompromising insurgent. A loud and gripping New York accent and sharp gesticulations embody, draw and deter people, simultaneously. Younger voters want a radical, uncompromising Democrat, while older voters want a moderate who can feasibly win the election. Narrowly voted off in the 2016 Democratic primaries, Sanders appears to be too far of an extremity for many, someone whom undecided voters will not support.
Facing this divergent path, and questions of electability, Democrats have agonized over their decision. Days before the Iowa caucuses, hordes of agitated party members still had not made up their mind, torn between progressivism and moderation.
Forecast polls positioned Biden against Sanders, diametrically opposed candidates. Results from the actual causes were delayed, inflating Democrats’ haze of indecision.
When the results were finally unveiled, Pete Buttigieg and Sanders were approximately tied. Elizabeth Warren trailed behind, and after her Biden. The Democratic Party could not officially declare a winner. After a mass of forecasts and hopes for any sort of clarity, Iowa’s caucuses failed to do what it has done for years: delineate the essence of the election.
Neither the 2016 nor the 2012 caucuses mirrored this alignment. In 2016, the range of candidates were severely limited, essentially split between Hillary Clinton and Sanders. Clinton won by a diminutive fraction of the vote, while still emphatically curtailing Sanders’ campaign. In 2008, Obama won overwhelmingly, with almost 40 percent of the vote, despite the Democratic stage of candidates paralleling that of 2020.
The triumph of Buttigeig, who has continuously straddled the line between progressivism and moderation, is perfectly emblematic of the party’s indecision. He resembles Obama the most, as a point of congruence for progressives and moderates alike. Yet he still has not enticed an impactive majority, unlike Obama in 2008. Sanders has taken a tantamount slice of the Democrats’ vote, claiming 25 percent of the votes. Both their slices are limited compared to the polarization of the 2016, where the split of the vote was virtually 50 percent.
The reason behind this lack of unification is the divergent goals of the future, whether to return to moderate Democrat policies or to enact sweeping structural change. The union within the Republican Party fosters even more anxiety within Democrats, as the Grand Old Party appears to be a monolithic force. Emboldened by a great economy and his constituents’ acquiescence, Trump has become the Democrats’ supervillain, a seemingly inviolable figure of the Republican Party.