DNC Chairperson Election
The DNC, or Democratic National Committee, is about to elect a new Chair. It will be one of the most important events for the Democrats in determining the party’s direction to take place in 2017.
Although referred to as an ‘election’, in reality only the 447 members of the DNC will vote, making it highly influenced by internal politics and not just who Democrats in general might prefer. This makes using SMI analysis to forecast a winner difficult as this is not a popular vote.
According to SMI analysis, Ellison has been the front-runner for months. In fact, from late last year when campaigning for this position more or less began, Ellison looked to be the obvious leader in terms of SMI. Only recently has he been challenged, by Buttigieg, which will be covered later.
For comparison purposes in popular vote elections, we normally use public polls. However, in the case of the DNC Chair election there do not appear to be any. Unscientific on-line polls (voting preference currently states 54% support for Ellison and perceived winner of debate currently states that 47% thought Ellison won debate) show that Ellison appears to be the most supported by the general public. The SMI, not coincidentally, points to Ellison in the lead as well.
Under ‘normal’ circumstances having one candidate that stands out is an advantage as it provides a clearer mandate. However, Ellison is highly aligned to Bernie Sanders and many fear electing Ellison to the Chair position could reinforce the Clinton-Sanders fault lines that were created during the primaries, which would not be beneficial to a party attempting to regroup.
The SMI ratings of the various candidates are highlighted in the following chart.
Chart 1: SMI or Social Media Influence Ratings for DNC Chair Candidates
Source: ZettaCap Note: Buckley and Harrison have recently dropped out of the race but it is interesting to note that their respective SMIs were relatively low and not seen as having gained influence on social media.
Ellison posts the best SMI rating, however, it is currently at its lowest level in months. Hitting a new recent low going into the voting is not a net positive. For Ellison, the sooner the election can be resolved the better (there will likely be mulitple rounds of voting which could play against him given his sliding SMI).
In second place is Buttigieg. His SMI was fairly low at the end of last year and he would not have been an obvious choice at that time as a real contender. However, in the last few months, his SMI has greatly improved and just recently he has surged ahead of Perez, who up to that stage was in second place. Buttigieg is an interesting candidate in that he has not strongly aligned himself with either the Clinton or Sanders camps. Further due to his strongly increasing SMI, he appears to be a late favorite for ‘upsetting’ Ellison, who we assume to be the de facto leader given his superior SMI. The main benefit with electing Buttigieg is that he could potentially avoid the Clinton (establishment) vs Sanders (progressives) infighting.
Perez, generally seen as the establishment candidate, is currently in third place in terms of SMI, but his position is actually weaker than it looks in the previous chart. His basic trend has been down which is especially worrisome given that voting is about to start. His relatively lower and declining SMI reflects a general public uninspired by his message. He started his campaign for DNC Chair with a number of high-profile endorsements and a high level of enthusiasm. According to his SMI however general support has been fading.
Again, SMI will not be able to accurately forecast which candidate will win as the election is not open but confined to the 447 voting members, and therefore exposed to internal politics. SMI is able to tell us which candidates have the most natural general support and the direction of that support. In this sense, Ellison has highest level of support, Buttigieg definitely has the momentum, and Perez is fading right at the finish. The other candidates have not shown enough signs of traction to even be mentioned.
Applying these insights to the real world case of choosing the next DNC Chair does not bode well for the Democratic Party as two of the three main scenarios would likely result in increased party in-fighting.
- Electing Ellison would be the most popular short-term move given his SMI and on-line poll results but it would trigger infighting within the party as progressives would move to take power, the outcome of which is difficult to predict. Additionally, a DNC led by Ellison would likely blame Clinton and the establishment for the Democrat’s 2016 loss and produce permanent strain within the party.
- Electing Perez would satisfy the establishment of the party but due to his relatively low and fading SMI, his election would likely be perceived as relying too heavily on internal politics and not enough on enthusiasm from the rank-and-file. Perez’s election would also reinforce the accusations made by Sanders backers that the establishment wing of the party uses its internal power to too great of an extent.
- Electing Buttigieg is a solid ‘third way’ which could appease both the establishment and progressives. Further, his SMI has greatly improved (frankly threatening to overtake Ellison given some more time) implying a significant amount of real traction. In terms of SMI, his election would generally be acceptable given his strong positive momentum. In terms of party unity, his election would also be acceptable given that he would not reinforce internal fault lines.
Certainly, time plays in the favor of Buttigieg whose SMI is increasing quickly. The longer the election process is drawn out into multiple voting rounds, the greater the chances of a Buttigieg victory.
Applying SMI analysis to the DNC Chair race has proven insightful even though it is not a popular vote election. SMI ratings have more or less confirmed our basic understanding of the race and of the main candidates. It has also confirmed the candidates’ relative standings against one another. Lastly, it has served as an excellent identifier of shifting support patterns within the race.