The Washington Post’s Presidential Wish List
The Washington Post’s list of Top 10 Democratic presidential candidates for 2024 shows ignorant and out-of-touch elite journalists are.
What’s shocking about The WaPo’s list is the names that do not appear. The most glaring absence is the man who received 26.22% of the popular vote in the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary: US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).
In detail, Sanders received 9.68 million popular votes and 1,112 delegates in the 2020 Democratic Presidential primary. Yet he is absent from The Post’s list.
In contrast, the number two candidate on The Post’s list, US Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg (D-Indiana) received just 24 delegates and 924,289 popular votes.
Buttigieg received only 0.6% of the delegates and 2.5% of the popular primary vote, yet Post writer Aaron Blake claims Pete “ran a good campaign.” Blake’s idea of a “good campaign” is strange. I think a good campaign is one that wins large numbers of votes or delegates. Blake, however, has a different idea.
Top Contenders who cannot win votes
Tellingly, The Post’s number three candidate Vice President Kamala D. Harris (D-California) did so poorly in the Democratic presidential primary she dropped out in December 2019. The Post’s number four candidate, US Senator Liz Warren (D-Massachusetts) received just 67 delegates (1.68%) and 2.832 million votes (7.67%) in the Democratic presidential primary.
The Post’s number five candidate US Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota), won seven delegates (0.176%) and 529,722 (1.43%). The only other 2020 candidate The Post lists as a 2024 contender US Senator Corrie Booker (D-New Jersey) received no delegate in the 2020 Democratic Primary.
The Mystery of the Missing Candidates
Sanders is not the only vote getter, The Post ignores. Billionaire and former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (D-New York) won 49 delegates (1.23%) and 2.494 million popular votes (6.75%). Yet, Bloomberg, like Bernie, is not a serious contender in The Post’s alternate reality.
So why is The Post refusing to consider Bernie or Bloomberg as serious candidates? My guess is that Bernie and Bloomberg are outside the political establishment. Bernie, a social democrat, is far left while Bloomberg leans right.
Total cynics will wonder if Anti-Semitism plays a role. Both Bloomberg and Sanders are Jewish.
Some people will say age disqualifies both men. Bloomberg and Sanders are both 80 years old. However, Biden is 79-years-old, roughly the same age as Sanders and Bloomberg. If 79-year-old Joe Biden is a serious presidential contender, why are 80-year-old Sanders and Bloomberg not credible candidates?
Sadly, Bloomberg and Sanders are not the only serious candidates The Washington Post ignores. Basic-income advocate Andrew Yang out-polled Kamala Harris and raised $39.762 million in campaign contributions. Yet Yang’s name is conspicuously absent from The Post’s list.
I think The Post’s Top Ten is a moderate Wish List, not a serious ranking of potential candidates. The names on the list are the Democratic candidates, a moderate intellectual who lives in Washington DC wants. Not the people who could attract votes.
The Contenders the Post Ignores
I consider Sanders the number-two Democratic presidential contender for 2024. I also consider Bloomberg a more serious presidential contender than any of The Post’s picks besides Biden. Similarly, I think Yang is a more credible candidate than Buttigieg.
If Yang, Sanders, and Bloomberg do not run. I think other candidates will take their place and issues. In particular, I think a Sanders surrogate could do well as Sanders. A younger Sanders surrogate or a black Sanders will be hard for moderates to beat.
Similarly, a charismatic candidate backed by Bloomberg’s billions could be a strong contender if he or she starts early and runs a good campaign. Bloomberg only launched his campaign on 24 November 2019, yet he came in fourth. I think Bloomberg could have given Biden and Bernie a serious challenge if he had announced earlier. If Bloomberg or his surrogate launches a campaign in 2022 or 2023, I think she or he will stand a serious chance.
Indeed, I think there are only two credible presidential contenders on The Post’s list. The first is Biden, and the second is California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-San Francisco). Yet Newsom comes in ninth.
I consider Newsom a serious candidate because he’s governor of California, the nation’s most populous state. One of our most popular Presidents Ronald Reagan (R-California) was also governor of the Golden State.
There are other governors who could be serious presidential contenders. First there’s Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D-Boulder). The nation’s first openly gay governor.
Polis is popular and a clever politician. For example, Polis defused the Republicans’ anti-mask and anti-vaccine hysteria by refusing to engage in COVID-19 lockdowns. However, Polis leans left, and he’s a governor of a smaller Western state.
One problem I see with The Post list is that it is top heavy with candidates who are a quick subway ride from the paper’s offices. A subway ride is far easier to justify on a reporter’s expense report than airline tickets to Colorado and hotel rooms in Denver. My suspicion is that Polis is just one of several governors The Post ignores.
The Dark Horse Celebrities
Plus, there is one dark horse celebrity candidate the Post needs to rank. Dwayne the Rock Johnson. I don’t know how serious the wrestling legend’s political ambitions are, but he wrote them into his sitcom Young Rock.
However, I think there’s a possibility the mock presidential campaign on Young Rock is a joke. Yet I think Johnson could be a serious contender if he gets somebody like Bloomberg behind him.
On the positive side, there are two terrible candidates The Post rightly ignores Hillary R. Clinton (D-New York) and former first lady Michelle Obama (D-Illinois). I don’t think either woman wants to run, although they both have some popular support.
Smart people will ignore The Post’s Top Ten List because it is fantasy.
