Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


The ‘Post Power Pundits’ is dumb. And totally irresistible.

Just as I preach often against paying too much attention to polling on the presidential race — we’re still a year and a half ahead of the election (assuming no one declares and emergency and calls it off) — I also recognize the silliness of pundits who rely on polls (and their gut) to try to predict who, of the 101 dalmatians seeking the Democratic nomination, will be the nominee.

But I can’t help myself (and neither can you). Recently I’ve been following the periodic rankings of The Washington Post’s “Post Power Pundits,” who at least have the good humor to assign themselves a silly name and who opine of the state of the Democratic nomination. They put out an occasionally updated list of where they think things stand in the contest for the Dem nomination, which is, technically, still in spring training with no convention delegates won by anyone and still more than six months before opening day in Iowa.

So here’s a quick glance at the PPP’s latest update, just out today.

After weeks of Joe Biden being ranked first, a red hot Elizabeth “I’ve got a plan for that” Warren has moved into a tie with Biden for the top spot. She was ranked second last time. Megan McArdle of the Post, who wrote the commentary to go with today’s rankings, says “Biden’s campaign platform is currently ‘I’m Joe Biden,’ and that seems to be working for him — at least better than ‘I’m still not Ted Cruz.’”

Bernie Sanders holds his spot at No. 3. The power pundit opine that Warren and Sanders, “aren’t all that far apart on either their breathtaking promises for new spending or their lack of any realistic mechanism to pay for them.”

Like Warren, Pete Buttigieg moved up a half-spot from 5th into a tie with Kamala Harris for 4th.

Minnesota’s Sen. Amy Klobuchar also moved up a place into 6th, trading places with Cory Booker, who drops to 7th.

The full ranking, with McArdle’s commentary, is here.

Comments (2)

  1. Submitted by John Evans on 06/15/2019 - 11:20 pm.

    Oh, “the lack of any realistic mechanism to pay for” Sanders’ and Warren’s “breathtaking promises!”

    Has any Republican ever even suggested any realistic mechanism to pay for the Iraq war? Or the Afghanistan war? Or the really enormous peacetime buildup of our military forces under Trump? Nope, nope and nope.

    When every single Republican in Congress voted for the tax cut, they told us that it would produce so much growth that it would pay for itself. Megan McArdle, of course, knew this to be a transparent lie, but mostly weighed in with snarky comments about the bill’s opponents.

    Pundits like McArdle are serenely comfortable calling Sanders’ and Warren’s plans fiscally unrealistic, though the payment mechanisms are actually somewhat thought out. They are certainly more financially realistic than any Republican budget in this century.

    When Republicans start asking how we’re going to pay for our next discretionary war, (coming soon!) I’ll start asking how we’re going to pay for health care for all the uninsured children in Minnesota.

    • Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 06/16/2019 - 11:00 am.

      Just a fe changes to add a greater context, not necessarily disagreeing with your assertions:

      “Has any Republican/centrist Dem ever even suggested any realistic mechanism to pay for the Iraq war? Or the Afghanistan war? Or the really enormous buildup of our military forces under Bush/Obama?Trump? Nope, nope and nope.”

Leave a Reply