Disclaimer: The views below are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of MCBA and its members.

MARCH ELECTIONS
Most voters know that the next California presidential primary will be in March of 2020 rather than in the customary June. In fact, California has moved its primary month five times since 1992 – from June to March to February and back to June (to save the expense of separate primaries for president and for the rest of the races). This time, all the primary races will be held in March. This change, California hopes, will bring candidates to California and make us relevant in the presidential countdown.

That means March ballots (for which the filing period runs from mid-November to mid-December) will include: the county supervisor races of Katie Rice, Dennis Rodoni, and Kate Sears; two to three seats on each of the city and town councils of Belvedere, Corte Madera, Mill Valley, and Ross; new six-year terms for Judges Verna Adams, Mark Talamantes, and Beverly Wood (judicial challengers are always unlikely; successful ones even less likely); seats for two sanitary districts (Almonte and Kentfield); and the “races” for County Central Committees for each party (rarely contested, usually with no campaigns, for little-known candidates except for the few who are also current or former elected officials); and of course, the usual primaries for Congress and State Assembly.

TELEVISED DEMOCRATIC PRESIDIENTIAL DEBATES THIS JUNE AND JULY
As Trump has a lock on the Republican nomination, there’s no one for him to debate, so we only have Democratic debates to look forward to. The first two will be held June 26th and 27th, with about ten candidates in each (more than that was deemed unwieldy, with too little time for each candidate), with qualified candidates randomly assigned to one night or the other.

In rules set by the Democratic National Committee, candidates must qualify to participate in the June debates by attracting at least 65,000 unique donors with at least 200 donors in at least 20 different states. It’s also possible to qualify through polls, that is by winning one percent of the vote in three qualified polls. All but a few of the current 24 candidates (as of late May) have qualified, and there is still time for a few more of the existing candidates, or maybe even a new one, to qualify as well. For the second round of debates in July, those requirements will double.

Some candidates will be disappointed to find that, even after months of campaigning in Iowa and other early states and trying to get enough media coverage to catch fire, they have not moved the needle much in poll numbers and fundraising and will drop out soon after the June or July debates. Others will last a little longer but drop out before the start of primaries and caucuses in February. After that, unless a candidate places in the top two (or three?) in at least one (or two?) of the four early states (IA, NH, SC, and NV), then he or she has no chance and will drop out, whether they admit or not that they are also not increasing their fundraising enough, if at all, to continue.

FRONTRUNNERS
By next March, we can expect to see maybe three or four final candidates, barring a surprise late emergence in the next few early primaries and caucuses. (Remember that the last three Democratic nominees who went on to become President—Carter, Clinton, and Obama—were all little-known when they jumped in.)

“Super Tuesday” is March 3, 2020, immediately after the first four states in February, when a significant number states vote, some with significant populations and delegate allocations, including California. So if we don’t have a clear frontrunner by early March, we are likely to have one by late March (the long, close Obama/Clinton and Clinton/Sanders races in ’08 and ’16 notwithstanding). And the most likely frontrunner (and nominee, and president), in my opinion, is…

JOE BIDEN
As anticipated in my last column two months ago, Joe Biden announced, and immediately became the Democratic frontrunner in the polls—overwhelmingly or narrowly, depending on which polls you count—and also in fundraising. He narrowly beat Bernie Sanders’ impressive first-day online receipts of $6M, and Kamala Harris’ $3M, and all others by even wider margins.

Until he became Obama’s VP pick 11 years ago, Biden was a long-time prominent senator who never got much traction in his prior runs for president. Two cases of plagiarism (in college and in the Senate), harsh treatment of Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas SCOTUS confirmation hearings a quarter century ago, a pretty bad case of foot-in-mouth disease, and the yearning in various wings of the Democratic party and electorate for a candidate younger, and/or of color, and/or female, and/or more progressive, might give some voters pause. But the friendly feelings for kindly Uncle Joe as Obama’s cordial and significant older junior partner has apparently left many people with warm and fuzzy feelings, perhaps in part because they liked and admired (and still like and admire) Obama so much that Biden still shines at least a little in Obama’s (continuing) reflected glory.

Many voters of course are still undecided, given the large field that few can name, much less be familiar enough with yet to make an informed choice, so it’s impressive that Biden already polls in the 30s in some polls and some states. He has a lead of 10 to 20 points or so over Sanders, in most polls, followed, in varying orders, by Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Pete Buttigieg (who surprised many of us by rising as fast and as far as he did). Other impressive (but in the second tier or lower) candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, and Beto O’Rourke are all at about 1 to 5% (some say maybe 10%) in polling as of late May, and also far behind the first tier in fundraising.

WHAT, IF ANYTHING, COULD DERAIL BIDEN?
Biden doesn’t have a majority in the polls anywhere yet (and may never), but in ’15-’16, Trump started with about 20% in the polls among Republicans, and then got up to about 30%, and then 40%, but the other candidates were so numerous that they spread out the non-Trump supporters, giving Trump a continuous, significant, and growing lead; I predicted in December 2015 that he would win the nomination for that reason. The same may happen to Biden, and he’s starting higher and better known (and has more political experience than any other candidate, contrary to Trump’s nonexistent, and even Obama’s, federal experience, which consisted of two years in the Senate when he announced, and four when he was inaugurated), and there are so many other candidates splitting up the non-Biden supporters, that Biden’s lead looks now, and may remain, seemingly huge.

But anyone age 76 (as Biden now is) could have health problems, or his foot-in-mouth disease could have yet another eruption and diminish his lead, or make it evaporate entirely. Although gaffes were often a death knell for candidates, especially Democrats, Trump makes them with alarming frequency (even if you don’t count outright lies as gaffes), and they don’t seem to hurt him. The large size of Biden’s lead, if it holds, may incline a significant percent of the significant number of fence-sitters to gravitate to him, if for no other reason than they want to support a winner. And he does seem to many people, in many ways, to be the “safest” choice: most experienced and least likely to blow up in ways we couldn’t have predicted.

Being the front-runner from wire-to-wire (as was pretty much the case for Trump), also puts a target on the frontrunner’s back and vastly increases scrutiny. Some wilt under that scrutiny, but Biden has already survived a lot. Occasionally an obscure candidate catches fire and shoots to the top of the polls (e.g., Gen. Wesley Clark in 2004, a late-entering relative unknown, who shot to the top very briefly, and then plunged down again to where he belonged), but such examples are rare. It’s likely that Biden will maintain or even increase his lead over the coming months (barring a serious gaffe that damages or ends his campaign), and others may remain in their relative places, give or take, until they all drop out, one by one.

BERNIE SANDERS
Bernie has numerous advantages and may be the only one with a serious chance to catch Biden, although he has weaknesses as well as strengths. As the runner-up last time, some feel it’s “his turn,” and he’s been vetted by the public and exceeded expectations. He’s thus seen as a “safe” and acceptable choice, despite his relatively far-left positions, which appeared radical three to four years ago, but now are endorsed by many of the other (progressive) presidential candidates, and now could be considered mainstream Democratic Party positions. Medicare for All, $15/hour minimum wage, and free college tuition may well make it into the party platform, if they’re not already there.

In my opinion, Sanders presents as rational, polite, and inspiring and is the right person to hold the bully pulpit, even if some or most of his proposals get bogged down, watered down, or fail in the near future. One would have guessed that he would have been hurt in 2016 by his age (a year older than Biden), his Einsteinian wild hair, Brooklyn accent, decades-long pre-politics background as a socialist rabble-rouser, or even his Jewishness. But none of those things ruled him out last time, and they may not this time, either.

Yet, in many people’s minds, the number-one criterion is the likelihood of beating Trump, and Biden’s actual (or at least perceived) lead in that area may be enough to carry him to the nomination. Should a Sanders supporter vote with their heart, knowing polls now show him beating Trump by perhaps only five points, when Biden shows a lead of about twice that?

KAMALA HARRIS
Harris may still be among the top few, but a considerable distance behind number two Sanders, who is a considerable distance behind number one Biden. She jumped in “early” (early January), as opposed to “late” (late January, which Warren, Gillibrand, and Booker all regretted as being too late, letting Harris get a slight head start), and by most accounts her kickoff and rollout were extremely good (20,000 people at her Oakland kickoff, and impressive first-day online donations), especially since she was a nationally little-known two-year U.S. Senator (unless you were a political junkie who saw an extremely charismatic and capable prosecutor at the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings last year.)

Some, including me, even thought that if Harris could hang close to the leaders in the first four states in February and win California in early March, she could be the leader in the delegate count, even if only temporarily. But recent polls indicate that the likelihood of her winning her home state are not as high as she obviously would have hoped, and she may not do well enough in the early four states (other than South Carolina) to remain among the top few (or at least top two) after Super Tuesday. Some say she’d make a great VP (and possible heir four years later) if the nominee is Biden or Sanders, and they decline to run for a second term (which would be rare) because of age. Personally, I think Harris would make a great US Attorney General, given her 13 years (before she joined the Senate) as San Francisco D.A. and California A.G, although she might prefer to stay in the Senate.

ELIZABETH WARREN
Warren continues to present some of the most bold and thoughtful ideas of any of the candidates, including some that may seem too far left and impossible to accomplish in the near future. As with Sanders, Warren appeals mainly to the left wing of the Democratic Party, and perhaps too many voters find her not very likable or even strident (too often a sexist term when used to describe a female candidate). She chose the highly ethical and admirable path of not holding any big-donor fundraisers, which are usually staples of candidates for president and nearly everything else. But while she’s done pretty well with small donors, and is among the top few in number of donors, without the big-donor fundraisers, she predictably lags in fundraising. But wouldn’t she be a great Secretary of Labor, or maybe any of several other departments as well? Although perhaps she would add the most value by staying in the Senate.

“TEAM OF RIVALS” FOR BIDEN’S CABINET?
Let’s assume the most likely things will occur: Biden gets the nomination, and he beats Trump. Even though Trump has withstood numerous problems which many of us thought would be the end of him, his defying Congressional subpoenas and maybe even court orders may cause doubt in too many voters’ minds by November of next year.

In my opinion, we have an amazingly large and talented field of Democratic presidential candidates of mainly well-qualified, experienced, thoughtful, and even inspiring candidates. It’s almost a shame that only one of them can win the nomination.

My imagination runs wild. Remember historian Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, Team of Rivals? It detailed Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet, which he populated in part with some of the people who ran against him for president. Could Biden do the same and have an all-star cabinet (instead of Trump’s all-dud cabinet), which could include (in addition to Harris and Warren, as suggested above), Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Amy Klobuchar and perhaps even House members like Eric Swalwell, governors and former governors like Jay Inslee, John Hickenlooper, and Steve Bullock, and maybe even mayors, like Pete Buttigieg? If even half of those people agreed to serve in the cabinet of whomever a Democratic President might be, it would be an unprecedented collection of former presidential candidates, with a huge amount of varied experience, who could conceivably quickly and successfully set about repairing the damage caused by the Trump administration, domestically and internationally.