A weekly window on the American political scene hosted by the Monitor's politics editors.

Expanding Democratic field reflects jitters over Trump – and the unknown

Charles Krupa/AP
Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick files to have his name listed as a Democratic candidate for president on the New Hampshire primary ballot, Thursday, Nov. 14, 2019, in Concord, N.H.

Dear reader:

On Capitol Hill Wednesday, two State Department officials spoke publicly about President Donald Trump’s efforts to get Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son – testimony Democrats clearly believe was damaging to the president.

Yet if you look at what’s happening right now in the 2020 campaign, Democrats don’t seem at all confident they’re going to beat him.

Why We Wrote This

Deval Patrick’s last-minute entry may say less about other 2020 contenders than about President Trump’s potential ability to expand the electorate.

Today, former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick announced he’s entering the race. Last week, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg signaled he may also get in. There have been rumors about former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder. Even Hillary Clinton recently offered up something conspicuously coyer than a “no.”

The common explanation for this last-minute flurry of would-be contenders is that many Democrats see the current field as weak: Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders are too far left to win a general election, the thinking goes; Mr. Biden has been an unsteady performer in debates and on the stump; South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg is too young and inexperienced.

But late entries almost never succeed. And Democrats’ nervousness may have less to do with their own candidates’ flaws than with a fear of Mr. Trump – and the unknown.

While the president has energized Democratic voters and appears to have pushed many Republicans in the suburbs into the Democratic column, there are also signs he could expand his own vote total in 2020. The question is by how much.

In a piece last month from Wisconsin – a state the Clinton campaign was confident it would win, but which went narrowly went for Mr. Trump in 2016 – Bloomberg’s Francis Wilkinson wrote: “Some Democrats fear that Trump has the equivalent of reserve troops — non-college-educated white males who didn’t vote in 2016 but who, after four years of Trump’s domination of media, political culture and the very oxygen we all breathe, might turn out in 2020.”

Likewise, The New York Times’s Nate Cohn notes that recent polling from battleground states suggests “there are plenty of people who haven’t voted recently who support the president. And those people seem fairly likely to vote.”

If 2016 taught Democrats anything, it’s that they don’t know what they don’t know. The electorate in 2020 may look like it did in 2016 – or it may look markedly different. And that’s hard to plan for.

Let us know what you’re thinking at csmpolitics@csmonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Expanding Democratic field reflects jitters over Trump – and the unknown
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today