The Correct Analogy for the 2024 Election

Well that just happened. I have a number of thoughts on this but until I get time to put them down in detail here's a summery of what I think.

However one thing I did want to point out is that people are missing the correct analogy when it comes to what happened this cycle. Nate Silver recently made a typically error by using a Homer Simpson analogy which is obviously totally off. Harris and Biden are pretty different people and switching the candidate out was clearly the correct move, even if the Democrats still didn't win.

It bears repeating, but no matter how many times media people claim otherwise one can run a good campaign, even a perfect one, and still lose an election.

As I see if Democrats had kept Biden they probably would have ended with something like a 1980 style blow out in the Electoral College and with the GOP winning say 7-10 Senate seats and a 20+ majority in the House. Instead the candidate switch and Harris's pretty good campaign resulted in a close election with much smaller loses in Congress and state governments. That's a really big difference!

The fact is there are important difference between a comfortably large House majority and one where deaths and retirements might put the chamber in play between now and 2026. Likewise any single Senator can have real influence and the smaller the GOP majority the harder it is to confirm awful people like Matt Gaetz.

The correct 2024 analogy we are all looking for was from Oliver Stone's crazy but great football movie Any Given Sunday. The film features over-the-hill coach Tony D'Mato (Al Pacino) trying to guide the once great Miami Sharks back to glory. His plans all fall apart at the beginning of the film when his star but aging QB Jack "Cap" Rooney (that's Biden) is injured and has to be replaced by the young questionable talent Willie Beaman (that's Harris).

It's a pretty standard sports drama from then onward. Willie turns out to be better than anyone expected, he just needed someone to show him how to believe in himself you see, or at least not to act like a jackass all the time and the Sharks look like they might be able to win the Superbowl, sorry Pantheon Cup. I'd add that because of it's great ensemble cast, well written subplots, and interesting things to say about the myth and business of sports is actually a pretty good film, even if Oliver Stone made some odd choices (if you know you know).

But this isn't a standard Hollywood movie, it's an Oliver Stone film, so it ends with the "big game" being the league championship with Harris, sorry, Willie being able to squeak out a win in the final seconds.

The Super Bowl occurs off screen and in the final scene as the credits run we learn the Sharks lost. It was not to be.

To me that's basically what happened. Harris improbably became the nominee and then came agonizingly close to winning but alas didn't. The norm media people are socialized into is to always portray the losing presidential campaign is incompetent and run by idiots. But in this case it's not true, it was a pretty good campaign! Just not good enough to overcome the same headwinds that have sunken every other democratic government with an election this year other than Luxembourg.

Had Coach D'Mato cut Captain Jack earlier could they have won? Maybe, but like in sports it's just hard to know for sure. Maybe Willie would have done worse, maybe the real problem was choices made long ago as D'Mato points out to the owner that "Maybe if I had gotten the linemen I wanted maybe our quarterback would still be walking!" We'll just never know, but the idea Harris was "bad at politics" is clearly wrong.

One can run a good campaign, even a perfect one, and still lose an election.

What People Get Wrong About Harris in 2020

Here's a quick post about something I think a lot of people get wrong about Vice President Kamala Harris's 2020 campaign for the Democratic nomination.

Folks like Nate Silver look at how she dropped out fairly early during the 2020 cycle and sight that as iron clad proof that "she's bad at politics", but a presidential nomination isn't like being on Survivor where the longer you last the better you've done at all. 

Instead it's more like a poker game at a tournament where there are some high risk/high reward strategies that maximize your chance to win but mean you could go bust quickly, and some strategies (like how I play poker, you just never bet) that maximize the time you stay in but make it really, really unlikely you'll win the table/tournament. 

To review, after Harris's big break out debate moment where she knocked Biden she got a ton of free media coverage and her fundraising surged. Hoping to maximize her advantages of this major break she went with a high risk/high reward strategy of staffing up nationally in order to maximize her chances of winning if she caught fire and she pulled an upset in an early state and/or had to hang in for a long drawn out battle. Unfortunately for her the debate moment turned out to be a one off moment, not a major breakthrough with the public or donors and so the money ran out fairly quickly (a national campaign staff leads to quite the "burn rate" for a campaign) and so she had to drop out. 

Meanwhile a candidate like Amy Klobuchar went with the low risk strategy of conserving her money for the long run and so she was able to stay in much longer. Under the "Survivor Model" this means she ran a better campaign, but in reality Klobuchar had little campaign infrastructure (even in her own state) to be able to take advantage of a break through if she got lucky and one occurred.

In other words her strategy kept her in race for a while, but she was never a major threat to Biden once the field narrowed, hence why she quickly dropped out and endorsed him. Meanwhile Harris going "all in on" that early great hand didn't work out, but it was still a smart move if she wanted to actually win the big enchilada and not just stick around in the game for as long as possible

You can see other good examples of how the "Survivor Model" doesn't hold up in past races as well. Under this theory in 1988 Jesse Jackson ran a great campaign and thus he was a very skilled politician, after all he took it all the way to the convention, the last Tribal Council! Likewise Jerry Brown in 1992 held out the longest against Bill Clinton, and thus ran a great campaign as well. But in reality The Duke's real threats in 1988 were people who dropped out early due to scandals like Gary Hart and Joe Biden not a factional candidate like Jackson, who never appealed much to the party other that his coalition of some white liberals and black voters. Likewise the candidates who had a chance to actually beat Bill Clinton in 1992 were probably guys like Mario Cuomo (who dropped out before New Hampshire), Tom Harkin, and Bob Kerrey not a candidate like Brown who appealed largely to just his own personality based faction and people who hated The Big Dog, or Paul Tsongas who was pretty out of step with the mainstream of his party on a number of issues.

First GOP Debate Review

Hello, is this thing on? 

I haven't been blogging much anymore for various reasons but the fact that I actually took the time to watch the GOP's first presidential debate makes me feel obligated to write something up about it. So here goes:

Well that was awful. One thing that struck me as an overall theme of this Trump-lacking debate was how very much it is now Trump's party (with some notable dissents). 

To keep things quick, and because I've decided to write this without looking at other people's reaction online let's just do bullet points.

• The narrative divide: There's a pretty giant divide in the GOP these days between old schoolers like Mike Pence who talks about a sort of Reagan's idea of "Morning in America" moment they want to bring about (the former VP seems to have mentioned Dutch more than five times) and folks like Vivek Ramaswamy arguing for a Trump style "American Carnage" master narrative. To put it simply this is a major change for the optimism of presidents like Reagan and the Bushes of my younger days. 
• Vivek Ramaswamy seems to have "won" the debate: That is he probably got the most camera time and really raised his profile. I'd expect a "bump" in the polling, but I doubt that will last. Why have this know-nothing internet celebrity figure when you can have Trump, the platonic archetype?
• DeSantis did fine, which probably means he "lost" the debate: Sure he did a decent job of delivering his lines, but I didn't see much to change the current dynamics with Trump as front runner and him as a distant second. It's not the end of the world, RDS can still win, but this is yet another blown opportunity for him.
• The crazy doesn't stop: It's kind of wild that "bomb/invade Mexico" has become a mainstream position of various GOP candidates for president. That seems like a really poorly though out idea. It's also sad, Mexico isn't a failed state, it's a country with problems but nice stuff too.
• Less of the "woke" stuff: Nobody really used that term, and there was just one question about trans people, I don't know what this means but I expected more.
• Everyone else: Well Christie was fun yelling at Ramaswamy, but a lot of meh other than that. 

In conclusion? It's still Trump's party and you can cry if you want to.

Feel The Bidenmentum!

One thing I've noticed recently is that there's been a number of liberals, often in the media, pushing the idea that it's time for Biden to hang up his spikes and let someone new run in 2024. Michelle Goldberg wrote a typical example of this recently, citing Biden's age as a major campaign liability due to media optics:

...chances are good that Biden’s competitor will be someone much younger, like Ron DeSantis, who will be 46 in 2024. Barring some radical shift in the national mood, the candidates will be vying for leadership of a deeply dissatisfied country desperate for change. For Democrats, the visual contrast alone could be devastating.

I understand her point, people oftentimes use the term "cringe" about Biden for real reasons. But here's where I think the Biden haters are wrong, there's just no good reason to assume that voters actually care about this stuff.

Afterall, Biden was the so called "cringe" candidate of the 2020 nomination cycle who ended up winning pretty easily despite what could be best called a "minimalist" campaign (Minnesota is a good example: his entire enterprise seems to have consisted of 30 people in a bowling alley for their election night party, while Bernie Sanders supposedly had hundreds of dedicated activists all over the state. And Biden won.)

Moreover these sorts of analysis suffer from a version of what Matt Yglesias calls "The Pundit's Fallacy", that is the idea that the key to winning elections is to do whatever the author of a given piece of punditry wants that politician to do. In Goldberg's case not replacing Biden with someone, "...like Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia."

Meanwhile, unlikely speculation about television optics, the advantage of incumbency is a very real thing. There's a reason why only three incumbent presidents lost reelection since the Second World War. Given a choice of "more of the same" or "time for a change" the American electorate, for whatever reasons, tends to favor not rocking the boat baring something like a bad economy or a devastating pandemic. In fact, while the historical comparisons are less helpful, this seems to be a theme throughout American history going back to the 1790s.

To be fair Goldberg, and other's, argument is that voters will desperately want major changes in 2024, but I really don't see that. The 2022 midterms were hardly a change election with incumbents doing pretty well. As far as I can tell the degree people express dissatisfaction in polling seems to be more of a COVID hangover than people calling for a whole rethinking of the welfare state.

Finally, I think Goldberg is a bit presumptuous to assume that her preferred candidates would end up replacing Biden. Instead of Warnock the Democrats might very well end up with Bernie Sanders, an even older white guy! Or Kamala Harris who, for better or for worse, is deeply tied to the Biden Administration already. Or even some dark horse type candidate like JB Pritzker. The one thing you could count on is it would be a crazy free for all with everyone and their mom running that could easily turn into a progressive policy auction just like the 2020 cycle where the new nominee is stuck with a bunch of deeply unpopular positions.

I'll stick with the advantages of incumbency thank you very much.

Anything of course can happen. For all we know Biden might have a heart attack tomorrow. But the reality is that Biden is the Democrats best shot at holding on to the White House. People who claim that democracy hangs in the balance in the election of 2024 should act like they really believe this and get onboard the Biden Train. 

Minneapolis' Recent Election Explained

Well that just happened.

There of course is a lot to unpack in what can only describe as Minneapolis's most important election in decades. And having lived through those days of "fire and fury" I have a lot of opinions. But in the sprit of Julia Azari's excellent recap of what happened in Virginia, I'll go with four big points:

Jacob Frey Is The Come Back Kid

If you had asked me is early July of 2020 what mayor Jacob Frey's political future was I would have told you that it was quite likely he wouldn't seek reelection, if only because there's no way he could win. Indeed I thought there was a decent chance he would resign as he seemed at times to have taken things on a personal level.

But what a difference a year and a half can make! 

We seemed to have witnessed one of the biggest political comebacks, since, I dunno, Richard Nixon? To be fair a lot of things broke in Frey's favor. For reasons that remain unclear he never attracted a big competitor and thus his main opponents where a community activist who had never held elected office and a former state legislator who used to represent a suburb of St. Paul.

Likewise his opponents focused on what I saw as a bizarre strategy of not coordinating around a specific alternative candidate, and instead just urging people to vote for anyone but Frey. At first glance it might seem to make sense as Minneapolis has a nonpartisan "top three" ranked choice voting system...but in reality refusing to coordinate around a specific alternative to a incumbent is a pretty poor strategy. As Rick Flair would say "to be the man, you have to beat the man." That is to say you can't just Tweet #dontrankFrey and hope for the best. Or rather you can do that, but I wouldn't expect it work.

Urban Politics Often Isn't About Ideology

It's popular in commentary about Minneapolis politics to discuss conflicts in terms of ideology. So Frey is described as a "centrist" or "on the right" when in reality in the broader context of American politics he's a ridiculously flaming liberal. Likewise Axios Twin Cities tried to make some sense of this with a helpful map about the five incumbents that lost reelection on the city council, and it sort of works. But not really. Is Jason Chavez really more "to the left" than Alondra Cano was? Than Gary Schiff was? At a certain point it's arguing about how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.

I'd argue that the real dividing line in Minneapolis politics was over Frey and the Question Two amendment. To over simplify: after George Floyd was murdered and the riots happened Minneapolis politics became polarized around the idea that Jacob Frey was the problem and had to go, and those who opposed getting rid of him for whatever reason. It also polarized around the idea that the MPD was the problem and it had to go, and those who opposed this idea for whatever reason. 

In short, this isn't a story about who's on the "left" and "right" and who's a "progressive" or a "centrist" but rather specific positions around those big questions.

Values Are Vague, Referenda Are Concrete

One theme of "the discourse" around the results is progressives announcing profound frustration with other progressives who ended up voting for Frey or voting down Question Two. This usually comes in terms of the idea that someone isn't "living their values." But the thing about values is they are vague. What does it mean to say "Black Lives Matter", to put a lawn sign in your yard stating such? That you support "dismantling" the police department and creating a whole new institutions from scratch? Or something else?

At the end of the day a voter in a referendum is being asked to make a specific choice ie "yes" or "no" to a specific question. In this case a specifically worded question that was written to leave the door open to "abolishing the police" (hence the use of "may" rather than "shall"). And a lot of voters, including many liberals with Black Lives Matter lawn signs decided, for whatever reason, to vote no.

To bring it back to lawn signs I remember seeing someone who had a "No Justice, No Peace!" sign AND and Frey sign. You might think that's crazy, I thought it was quite funny, but to this person those values aligned. 

Sometimes Activist Groups Aren't That Representative

A popular story about Minneapolis politics over the last year and a half is that of Jacob Frey as the out of touch white liberal being confronted by protestors furious (and rightly so!) about injustice (see this classic photo). And while there's some truth to this, it's also true that Frey's support among older black voters in North Minneapolis was a key part of his success, and those same voters were part of why Question Two was defeated as well.

It reminds me a bit about Elizabeth Warren who succeeded in winning the support of a number of black activist groups but could win over black voters. And I don't mean this a putdown about lefty activists groups, but just as a statement of reality. Just because a group claims to speak for folks, doesn't necessarily mean they actually do.

A Theory Of Social Media Meltdowns

Hello everyone. I've been taking a long break from blogging during the Rampjaar that has been 2020 for a bunch of different reasons, but seeing as we (probably) saved The Republic by electing Joe Biden and, in God's good time, we will get some sort of vaccine to end COVID, I have decided to "get back on the horse", as they say.

(I should also say I was a bit inspired by a lot of people doing things like launching their own online projects, or leaving standard journalism to brave the wilds of Substack, or pointing out that the old internet of Blog World was in many ways a lot better that the often times insane brave new world of social media.)

So with that here's my first attempt at posting in a while.

 

One thing you hear a lot about if you spend too much time on the internet is various very online and often social media driven meltdowns*, where an organization or institution, usually closely connected to the internet, makes a questionable (or not questionable!) decision, and then all hell breaks loose inside it in a very public way you can watch in real time.

Remember that time the New York Times decided to publish Tom Cotton's terrible Op-Ed? Classic meltdown. Or see this 2019 piece about a number of the social media driven meltdowns in the world of young adult literature. Likewise columnists in top tier media outlets leaving is its own subset of meltdowns, see the saga of Bari Weiss, or the meltdown about Kevin Williamson getting the boot. Or if you'd like a "ripped from the headlines" example, see the recent meltdown at Random House over if they should publish a self-help book from best selling author, and controversial weirdo, Jordan Peterson.  

These events are hardly that important in the grand scheme of things, but for those of us who spend way to much time online (which thanks to the virus is a lot of us these days) they can be very prominent when they break.

When they happen, they tend to create a enormous amount of online content where people fight about them and "what they mean". These takes run the gambit from "this was fair" to "this was unfair" to "this shows a dangerous new ideology" to "some one is getting their just desserts" to all sorts of thing about "wokeness" and "free speech" and God only knows what else.

But I was always struck by there being a weird sort of dynamic in these meltdowns that I couldn't quite put my finger on. Then I remembered a great old post and Twitter thread by Bloomberg's Noah Smith. He compared these sorts of dynamics to the Japanese concept of gekokujo.

Gekokujo is a Japanese concept that roughly means "the lower rules the higher" or "the low overcomes the high." Once upon a time, it would refer to lords of the lower ranks in the nobility overthrowing or controlling more senior lords in pre-modern Japan. But as Noah points out one of the classic examples of this is the so called "February 26 Incident" in 1936, where a influential clique of lower level officers in the Army attempted a coup to seize control of the military and government. They failed, and many of their leader were executed, but ironically, the Japanese military and government largely adopted their policies of sidelining civilian leaders, extreme militarism, and imperial expansion.

It didn't end well, to say the least.

This example may be extreme, but that's why I thought about it in terms of various online meltdowns. A lot of this stuff is a sort of gekokujo attempt by lower level people in very online and social media adjacent organizations to "over come the high" of that organization by leveraging the internet and especially social media.

Note that as Noah points there is nothing inherently wrong with this: "As an example of how gekokujo can do good, it's wonderful that the econ profession is finally trying to rid itself of sexism. That would never have happened without the support of social media. That was a heroic episode of gekokujo!" 

You could also argue that a lot of what happened around the whole #metoo movement in Hollywood was a sort of gekokujo push to get rid of people like Harvey Weinstein and others, and as the hashtag shows social media support was a big part of this.

Noah argues that the big danger of of gekokujo is a sort of backlash it can lead too, but I don't think that's what's going on with these sorts of very online social media meltdowns. Instead I'd point out some other specific problems that keep popping up:

1. Gekokujo campaigns have a tendency to get out of control: The Bari Weiss example is telling. No her career is not some important national issue, and I don't care for her much either. But if you're a progressive media person and start out trying to criticize the writing of one of the few non-progressive writers in your newsroom and end up arguably creating a classic "hostile work environment" for your lesbian coworker, maybe you should step back and ask yourself, "what are we doing here?" Or see the strange case of David Shor, the smart progressive political data guru who who faced a classic use of gekokujo online tactics to try kick him out of the small world of progressive data campaign people for tweeting an academic paper people didn't like. (Or see some of the truly bizarre stuff from The Online Young Adult Fiction Wars.)

2. Gekokujo tends to lead to group think: Many of the very elite media organizations I've outlined above that have engaged in these sorts of meltdowns seem to been stuck dumbfounded by recent political events. The New York Times is instructive: according to in-house conservative writer Ross Douthat when it came time to write their various "the case for..." pieces about who the next Democratic presidential nominee should be, none of the liberal columnists he works with were willing to do it for Joe Biden and so it fell to him. Why were these highly paid writers totally out of touch with what actual Democratic primary voters think? Likewise see the City of New York's swing of 7.6% towards Trump, more than any other state in the union, but I don't a recall a single pre-election story about this possibility. Gekokujo campaigns might cause your to lose focus on things like what voters in your own community actually think. And of course they can, one theme of these kinds of campaigns is that they take a lot of work to get going.

3. Who is the actual little guy? One of the themes in all these meltdowns is that the "lows" in gekokujo campaign aren't really that in terms of society, even if the fights are often always fought in those terms. Lower level staffer in The Atlantic or New York Times are hardly the truly disposed in our society. Is overthrowing the leaders of flagship publications really about creating a more just society? A better political press? Or could it be about something a little more self interested?

The big point here isn't that these individual meltdowns are some grave national crisis. It's that they show a peculiar sort of dynamic in a certain type of organization, some of which are quite influential, that seems increasingly common. And since this dynamic has the potential for real consequences, good and bad, it should be seen as something to actually treat seriously.

*I decided to call these events "meltdowns" in honor of the epic Gawker meltdown that was a trailblazer of this phenomena and also because I wanted to stress the similarities of these types of individual events rather than the unique circumstances that surround each one. If you are outraged and want to organize a social media campaign to cast me into the outer darkness please don't, but feel free to sound off in the comments!

Handicapping The Democratic Field V

With 10 days left before the Iowa Caucuses now seems like a great time to revisit where things in the Democratic field stand.

Following other posts I've written like this I'm going to continue to rate candidates in terms of their likeliness via broadly defined tiers. However I'm going to add something new, taking a (very, very) rough guess at the percentages of a given outcome and see where they line up with 538's cool new prediction model on who will win the nomination. So with an eye towards how idiotic this will probably look in three months, let's jump right in! (Also if you'd like to see how my thinking from about this has changed just click on the 2020 tag at the bottom of this post).

TIER 1:
Joe Biden: Simply put Biden has been and remains the front runner in the 2020 Democratic nomination cycle. Despite negative coverage by much of the press, and the never ending "gaffes" we hear so much about, he remains on top by most measures. In 538's national poll tracker he's about 6.5 points above Bernie, and over 10 points above Elizabeth Warren. Likewise he has a large lead in endorsements compared to his nearest competitor, 226 points to Warren's 81 by 538's methodology.  More over Biden's support among state legislators, another metric of party support, is the best with him having the most endorsements overall, and probably more importantly having a sizable contingent of endorsements from all four early states, unlike his competitors. And finally he has significant support from unions (see this awesome tracker somebody made), with only Bernie Sanders also having formal support among this key aspect of the Democratic coalition. To be sure, this hardly guarantees success, there is no national primary after all, and endorsements might be less valuable now that they appear to have been in past cycles. But never the less Biden is the front runner.
-538's odds of Biden winning more than half of the delegates as of 1/24: 41%
-Longwalk's guesstimate: I'd go a bit higher, as I guess his older, multiracial coalition is more durable than most suspect and there's a reasonable chance he could see a flood of party support after Iowa. Let's say 50%.

TIER 2A:
Elizabeth Warren: Warren seems to have basically been treading water since I last wrote about the race back at the beginning of December. She's in 3rd place in national polling at around 15% while generally tying Pete for fourth in Iowa and New Hampshire. Likewise she's gathered some more endorsements over January and is in second place after Biden by 538's count, but her pace of new support isn't very impressive. She picked up 13 new endorsement points in January compared to Biden's 54, Bloomberg's 22, Pete's 10, Bernie's 7, Bennet's 3, and Steyer's 1. That's not very impressive. Never the less she is well positioned as a big tent unity candidate if Biden and/or Bernie falter in early states.
-538's odds of Warren winning more than half of the delegates as of 1/24: 13%
-Longwalk's guesstimate: That seems low to me, I'll go with 25%.

TIER 2B:
Bernie Sanders: I've been bearish on Bernie's chances for a long time, mainly because he's a factional candidate running in a party that values coalition building and big-tentism. But I can't deny he has real support in the form of close polling in Iowa with Joe Biden and a small recent lead in New Hampshire while being second nationally. Likewise he recently passed Klobuchar and moved into third place in endorsement support. So despite my longstanding doubts, it is quite possible Bernie can succeed. Having said that I still think Warren and Biden are far more likely.
-538's odds of Bernie winning more than half of the delegates as of 1/24: 23%
-Longwalk's guesstimate: Due to the above factors I still think this is high, but having gotten this far and retaining real support means Bernie has a chance. I'll go with 10%, and feel free to mock me when he wins (I can then point out you don't know how probability works).

TIER 3A:
Pete Buttigieg: Since early December Pete has gone down in national polls from about 10% to 7.5% basically tying him with a rising Bloomberg. In addition, his support in Iowa and New Hampshire has declined making him roughly tied for fourth with Warren in both. Likewise, he remains weak when comes to party support, with his tiny roster of state legislators being pretty noteworthy, at least to me. But despite these difficulties it's his total lack of support among non-white voters in general and black voters in particular, that remains his biggest challenge. Could he win Iowa and somehow dramatically upend this race? I guess anything is possible, but at this point in the race he strikes me as a longshot.
-538's odds of Pete winning more than half of the delegates as of 1/24:7%
-Longwalk's guesstimate: Seems about right!

TIER 3B
Amy Klobuchar, Michael Bloomberg: I see both of these candidates as extreme long shots, but for very different reasons. Klobuchar has run a classic "Iowa or bust!" campaign hoping to use a victory there to launch a bandwagon that everyone will climb aboard, similar to what happened with John Kerry in the 2004 cycle, or Jimmy Carter way back in '76. Unfortunately while she has improved her standing in Iowa into the high single digits, she's still way behind everyone else. Moreover she seems to have little to no support in states after that. In that sense I really don't see it happening for her.
-538's odds of Klobuchar winning more than half of the delegates as of 1/24: Essentially Nil (538 gives everyone but the "Big Four" a .6% combined chance of winning).
-Longwalk's guesstimate: Hey, Trump's president right? So let's say 3%.

Michael Bloomberg has been trending up in national polls after spending God knows how much money of TV ads and hiring an army of staffers. Likewise he's been able to parlay his extensive connections with mayors and other Democratic political actors into some real endorsements, earning him 33 points by 538's counting, right behind Pete's 36. At this point he's no longer someone who can be dismissed. But at the same time the fact that he's skipping the early states, something that has never worked for other candidates who've tried it, and has a record that's deeply out of touch with the contemporary Democratic Party makes him a major long shot in my view. But then again look who's president!
-538's odds of Bloomberg winning more than half of the delegates as of 1/24: Essentially Nil.
-Longwalk's guesstimate: Hey, Trump's president right? So let's say 3%.

TIER 3C:
Contested Convention: As far back as I can remember journalists and pundits have fantasized about this outcome and thus every four years people try desperately to try to find ways bring the dream to life, and this cycle is no exception. But a mid-20th Century style convention in Milwaukee where the ultimate nominee is unknown when the convention is gaveled in remains really unlikely. Why? Well Dave Hopkins summed this up nicely last spring when professional take writers first got excited about it. Simply put such an outcome is unlikely because the winnowing based process we've already seen happening will only accelerate once voting starts, the front loaded calendar might end the process soon rather than later, the Democratic Party isn't "highly fractious", and party elites will work incredibly hard to prevent what would undoubtedly be a disaster in the modern era where there simply are no "brokers" to "broker" the convention.
-538's odds of a contested convention as of 1/24: 16%.
-Longwalk's guesstimate: Something really remote, let's say 2%.

TIER 4:
Everybody else. Sorry, you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.