So if you're like most of the American electorate these days you're probably either worried or outraged or glad-you-got-em-done about your taxes, happy to see spring finally arrive, or thinking about sports these days. But if you're one of us politically obsessed weirdos you're probably talking about the latest phenomenon to rock the Democrats' already ridiculously crowded field for 2020.
No, not Joe Biden. Beto O'Rouke! You know that guy who posed like Reagan in blue jeans? Yeah that guy.
To his detractors he's something of an up-jumped, "centrist", vapid, loser of a man, drench in "white male privilege" and perhaps a representation of everything that's wrong with politics these days.
To his fans he's...not those things.
Anyway, he's who everyone is talking about these days (barring the Oprah run various media types dream of) but I think some people who are less that fans are missing his appeal, even if they get his weaknesses as a candidate and a potential president quite right.
This came apparent to me recently when listening to and episode of a fun podcast out there by two political scientists named Larry Becker and Tyler Hughes out of California State Univeristy, Northridge called The Filibluster. In their latest edition Becker and Hughes were talking about the "three white dudes" Biden, Bernie and Beto running for president and what it all means. I'll save the Bernie and Biden writing for another day, and while I agree with many of their points I did think they missed some important stuff about Beto's appeal. Especially when it comes to important party actors in the "invisible primary" party of the 2020 cycle we are in.
You should listen to the podcast to get their whole arguments, but I think it's fair to summarize Hughes' view of Beto's appeal as being "He's a young white bro, and that's how people see him, and that's what it's comes down to, he's this cool exurb bro...he's just charismatic and young and a male and a white dude."
I don't think these these points are necessarily wrong, Beto does seem to have a big appeal with a certain type of younger liberal white man ("identity politics" strikes again!) and those might be the sorts of people who do have some extra cash to contribute to his epic first 24 hour haul.
But while I get Hughes' frustration around Betomania, at the same time I think there's a reasonable argument for Beto as the Democratic nominee: simply put he may be one of the more electable candidate out there.
"Electability" in presidential politics is a very tricky subject. As Seth Masket pointed out recently much of the writing about electability is basically just praising white men for how they are very white and also men (and if I can date myself: questions about if you'd want to have a beer with them). Likewise I think most people, including me as an Obama-fanboy back in 2008, first pick their candidate, and then come up with reasons why they are the most "electable" to justify this pick to everyone else (often including themselves).
But to the degree we can measure how good a given candidate is at winning the presidency I'd argue that how they did in a statewide election relative to a "generic" person of their party is a good metric, regardless of if they won or loss. For example, Nate Silver's number crunching shows that Beto probably outperformed a generic Democrat significantly in 2016 even if he lost in a very conservative state. The same way there's good evidence in Warren under performs in her elections, even if she easily wins in a very liberal state.
Moreover I think O'Rourke has demonstrated an ability to solve a key problem for the Democrats. One of the reasons, among many others, Trump was able to win razor thin majorities in key Great Lakes States in 2016 was low turn out from otherwise very Democratic voting young people, and high levels of "defection" in the two party vote to third parties. We can argue about why this happened, I have my own theories, but it clearly was a problem. Just as it was for the Democrats in terms of the drop off in young people voting in 2010 and 2014. In Wisconsin in 2016 over 6% of voters cast ballots for third parties and write-ins, in 2012 it was just a little over 1%. Trump won by a little over 20,000 votes. (all numbers from Wikipedia).
In other words Beto, for all his flaws, has a prove ability to turn young people out to the polls. This is no small thing in an age of increasingly age related political polarization. So it should be no surprise Democratic political actors are excited about Beto, he might be able to fix a fairly major problem for them.
As a liberal and a party hack for the Democrats, Beto is hardly my first choice. Indeed I find his political style a bit much. Becker might wince at Beto's jumping up on countertops, but I kind of roll my eyes at his lack of experience and vagueness about policy. Being president is a hard job, and it takes a lot more than energy and charisma to do it well in my opinion.
But at the same time I get that most voters kind of hate politics, especially now, and often find it gross and awful, and want someone who "is different" and can "change Washington." Trump after all, used this to great effect last time around. Just as Obama did back in 2008.
So while I won't be supporting him anytime soon, I thing Becker and Hughes are wrong to dismiss Beto as simply an empty suit or product of cultural factors they dislike. From a Democratic Party actor standpoint there is a reasonable argument for him.
In what might be a close election, his vagueness and can-do optimism might just win the Electoral College.
(A terrible system they discuss in great detail in that same podcast).
