History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes. I\u2019ve been trying to figure out why our current political moment feels so familiar and the answer has been there the whole time. We never stopped fighting the 2016 campaign, the names of the characters have changed but the dynamics haven\u2019t, nor have the issues. The Democratic candidates have their Republican parallels, I\u2019ve done my best to figure out who they are. I\u2019ve found that the description for each candidate fits fairly well whether you\u2019re thinking about 2016 or 2020.<\/p>\n

Cory Booker is George Pataki<\/strong><\/p>\n

He\u2019s running a campaign on ideas that the party doesn\u2019t really want. As an elected person representing a populous north eastern state you\u2019d think he\u2019d be more formidable because to be frank he knows where the money is. He is the happy warrior and he wants to talk about American renewal and love. But here\u2019s the thing, voters are angry and have been this entire decade and if you didn\u2019t know that then you were destined to lose. Overall he\u2019s running a \u201cgoober\u201d campaign that despite the resume, lacks gravitas.<\/p>\n

Tulsi Gabbard is Chris Christie<\/strong><\/p>\n

They once had a promising future in the party, but made a political decision that upset the elites and torpedoed that future. Now they only exist to get bad press coverage and attack weak candidates who haven\u2019t faced real scrutiny. They probably would\u2019ve been better off not running but they don\u2019t have a stellar track record for good decision making. They have theoretical bipartisan appeal, or so we hear from political analysts who seem to have never met a person without a Master\u2019s or makes under $165,000 a year.<\/p>\n

Beto O\u2019Rourke is Jeb<\/strong><\/p>\n

We know he\u2019s not running anymore but we can\u2019t believe it all fell apart so quickly. He began his campaign with so much promise and institutional support. After losing the last election the party got together and tried to understand why the last nominee failed and thought they optimized the winning formula with him. But he never had a natural constituency or performed well in debates, so he started to fade. Originally he was loved by the media and then they turned on him. Now he\u2019s universally disliked by the opposition and not especially loved by his own party so now he kind of just wanders aimlessly.<\/p>\n

Amy Klobuchar is Carly Fiorina<\/strong><\/p>\n

The media keeps waiting for her to surge but it doesn\u2019t seem to be happening. She\u2019s had some decent moments during debates, but never has broken out of the single digits. She\u2019s still running but it doesn\u2019t seem like it\u2019s for President anymore, yet she\u2019s maintaining that she has a special electability argument. She also has a reputation for \u201ccomplicated\u201d relationships with staff.<\/p>\n

Andrew Yang is Rand Paul<\/strong><\/p>\n

He\u2019s libertarian who is running for the nomination of one of the major parties. He\u2019s saying some things that make a lot of sense and there\u2019s real enthusiasm there. It doesn\u2019t seem like any of his competitors are taking him seriously which is rude considering he polls even or better than many of them.<\/p>\n

Kamala Harris is Marco Rubio<\/strong><\/p>\n

They made sense on paper and was promoted as the future of the party. They performed great during debates by challenging the front runner, they had a natural case for electability in possessing several qualities the last nominee didn\u2019t have, and they\u2019re well known in the party. However, they haven\u2019t lived up to expectations and have only seen their polling decline recently. They now seem unlikely to win any primaries, and almost certainly will lose their home state where they were just popularly elected to a different office. This campaign badly damaged their brand and they might be stuck in the Senate forever. To add insult to injury they don’t even poll well with the voters that they campaigned on being able to attract.<\/p>\n

Pete Buttigieg is John Kasich<\/strong><\/p>\n

We didn\u2019t really know him at first but now it seems like there\u2019s two profiles about him a week in major magazines. He won\u2019t stop talking about the Midwest and winning elections despite winning fewer votes in his re-election campaign than both his immediate predecessor and successor did in their first campaigns. He isn\u2019t popular with a core constituency in the party which almost certainly makes his campaign a non-starter, but he\u2019s going to unconvincingly pitch to them anyway because he has fundraised enough money from the worst people you don\u2019t know to last until June. Right now, he\u2019s hoping for a brokered convention to win on a fourth ballot or at the very least something to get him the hell out of Indiana.<\/p>\n

Elizabeth Warren is Ben Carson<\/strong><\/p>\n

For a little while there it really seemed like they were running away with it! They become the leader in national polls and state polls and had the highest favorable ratings in the party! But increased scrutiny hasn\u2019t been their friend and some voters are questioning their sincerity on some major issues, others don\u2019t think they\u2019re electable anymore. Yet they still represent a large chunk of the party and do reasonably well in polls. Not that long ago, it would have been hard to imagine someone like them leading a major party but there was a politician who looked like them before who shattered the glass ceiling. It\u2019s hard not to find them endearing even if how they deliver speeches is often lacking in energy. People are also whispering about controversial things they did in their youth that would come up in a general election campaign but they built their mythology around it, so they pretty much brought it on themselves.<\/p>\n

Bernie Sanders is Ted Cruz<\/strong><\/p>\n

He is supported by the activist base and not well liked by elected officials in his own party. His candidacy represents the natural evolution of the party, many of his positions have been adopted by the field, and he has led national discourse the last few years. He and the front runner clearly don\u2019t like each other, but somehow they like everyone else running even less. He\u2019s ideologically rigid which endears him to many voters, but it angers his colleagues. His plan for the nation is less about policy, although the policy is there, and more about a revolution of kinds to remake America. He makes the most sense as a nominee but it likely won\u2019t happen because of institutional barriers but in spite of that, he\u2019s more motivated in stopping the opposition than stewing over what might\u2019ve been. People never doubt his authenticity because he\u2019s been consistently for the same things forever and so he\u2019s become the standard bearer for his wing of the party.<\/p>\n

Joe Biden is Donald Trump<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ever since he announced he\u2019s been the front runner. He\u2019s objectively out of step with the direction the party has been attempting to go and he\u2019s unpopular online. The media doesn\u2019t get it and they desperately want him to fail if the coverage is to be believed. You might think there\u2019d be stronger candidates considering his gaffes, old school ideas, and scandals but it seems like voters are kinda into it. They\u2019ve known of him for the last 40 years, but they really got to know him the last 10 because of his relationship to Barack Obama. We keep waiting for him to falter but about one third of the party seems to be sticking with him. Sure, other candidates rise and fall but typically only ever to second place because nothing has been more consistent this campaign than his dominance in the polls. He\u2019s the favorite to be the nominee and yet we\u2019ll still be surprised when it happens because \u201cI don\u2019t know anyone who voted for him\u201d. Also, what\u2019s going on with his son? Is he alright?<\/p>\n

Honorable Mentions:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Steve Bullock is Mike Huckabee <\/strong><\/p>\n

If it were 1988 he\u2019d be President. But his political career didn\u2019t line up with our current political moment and so he\u2019s languishing at the bottom of the pack. He\u2019s the Governor of a state that had ancestral roots in his party but has been long gone in this century. Why didn\u2019t he run for Senate?<\/p>\n

John Delaney is Bobby Jindal<\/strong><\/p>\n

Is he seriously running for President or is this a mix of mid-life crisis, boredom, and trying to find work as a talking head on CNN? Regardless he\u2019s shockingly easy to meme and you\u2019re not even sure if he\u2019s still running.<\/p>\n

Michael Bloomberg is Michael Bloomberg <\/strong><\/p>\n

He\u2019s a Republican running in the wrong primary.<\/p>\n

Deval Patrick is Jim Gilmore <\/strong><\/p>\n

Who? He\u2019s running for What?<\/p>\n

Juli\u00e1n Castro is Rick Santorum<\/strong><\/p>\n

He missed his chance to be President in the last cycle. It turns out that being out of Government for four years renders you essentially irrelevant to the voters unless you\u2019re a Clinton.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes. I\u2019ve been trying to figure out why our current political moment feels so familiar and the answer has been there the whole time. We never stopped fighting the 2016 campaign, the names of the characters have changed but the dynamics haven\u2019t, nor have the issues. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":664,"featured_media":40532,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2119,3027,162,3244,1683,573],"tags":[3477,3478,2521,2494],"yoast_head":"\n