On Why You Can't Draft a "Generic" President or Player

Is it even possible to run a "Generic Democrat" for president?

I mostly try to avoid commentary on partisan topics, but it’s just so that a) There’s an imminent election, but also b) Sports and American politics have a lot in common. They’re both tribal contests that inspire immense emotional engagement from people who’ve little personal control over the outcomes. They’re both proxies for war with outsiders but the battles (mostly) happen within our borders. Obviously, one is actually quite important, while the other is…politics.

Anyway, the process of talent selection in politics isn’t wholly dissimilar from sports. Candidates get elevated through a system on the hope that they come through for their teams in bigger roles, on grander stages. There’s a lot of data involved, but also a lot of conventional wisdom. With that in mind, here’s an email from Subscriber Bob on the idea of drafting a Generic Democrat for the 2024 election:

Hi Ethan,

I think it was your podcast with Neil Paine (could have been Silver?) where you two beat around the bush on election talk and the NBA Draft that almost completed the metaphor about the two topics that has been on my mind. This was after the Biden-Trump debate but before Biden officially dropped out. One of you were discussing the favorability of "generic democrat" versus Biden and how the generic greatly outpaced him. Not sure if either of you directly made the comparison, but that is exactly like how an NBA team/exec/fan will almost always prefer the idea of a draft pick over who is actually selected aside from the very obvious situations like a Wemby or Steph Curry. Imagine, you could have the #5 draft pick in a year wouldn't you really want that?? OK, now let me tell you it's Shelden fucking Williams. You still happy? This seems a lot like politics and the "generic". Please, anyone but Biden!! OK, how about [not going to name anyone in particular but obviously there can be some bad choices]. In general there's a larger downside of results with a draft pick and sometimes you can hit a home run, it just usually doesn't happen.

The natural extension I see from this initial metaphor is how the NBA Draft operates and the similarities to how Kamala/Walz have operated with the media. There was an incredible amount of hype/momentum going into Harris/Walz campaign, but both have mostly limited their amount of interviews or interactions. I see a lot of similarities to say Yi Jianlian who famously did not work out against any competition throughout his draft process. The idea being that there had been enough international performances and hype around him that it wasn't necessary to workout against the collegiate field -- additional information around Yi would likely only have downside risk. Which makes sense from an asymmetrical information side of things for not just Yi, but also similarly positioned individuals in the draft process (I'm thinking Kyrie as a similar individual with these sorts of incentives but didn't turn out to be a bust). Highly rated prospects will often withhold medical information, decline interviews, avoid measurements at the combine, etc. as part of their angling for a draft slot/location. You do not see this sort of behaviour from lower ranked prospects aside from some unique situations like Bronny James.

No real question here. Just ramblings about the similarities in between a political process and a differently political process that was spurred on by seeing Kamala was on a podcast called "Call Her Daddy".

-Bob

Thanks Bob. I personally wasn’t reminded of Yi Jianlian when observing the 2024 election but I see where you’re coming from and I’m glad you sent the email. For whatever reason, in spare moments, I’ve been mulling the impossibility of embodying “generic” on a presidential level. I believe that saying very little can work in a Senate race. Only so many people are paying attention and that D or R brand is bigger than the politician. It seems like a presidential nominee must represent something other than “generic,” though, at least at some point. You need policies. You need a cogent issue set. Or at least I assume you do. There’s too much specificity demanded for a politician to simply coast along, merely defined by party.

Regardless of whatever outcome you want in this election, I think reasonable people can agree that the Harris campaign has struggled with this question of how to define the candidate. Before Joe Biden was ousted, there was a lot of polling data that suggested a “Generic Democrat” would beat Trump. Perhaps informed by such research, Kamala Harris kicked off her campaign as a “vibes based” appeal to “joy,” eschewing policy positions and avoiding media for many weeks. Initially her polling surged, only to later sink as she remained in hiding. Eventually she started doing media again and people can debate those results.

But I don’t really want to talk about Kamala Harris. Instead I’d prefer to riff on the idea of drafting for anything short of excellence in some capacity. The Warriors opted for a version of “generic” when they took Jacob Evans at pick 28 in the 2018 NBA Draft. Draymond Green, who was in conversation with management during the draft process, explained afterwards that, “There are 82-game players, then there are 16-game players.” The idea was that Evans, a versatile college player who lacked a glaring weakness, was ideally suited to joining a contender. The title runs had revealed to the Warriors that weaknesses get picked on in a seven game series. They needed someone who wasn’t necessarily excellent, but was good enough to stay on the floor as a role player.

Of course Evans completely flopped as a pro, which was no big deal since he was pick 28. It turns out that if you’re merely “good” at the college level, even good in a variety of ways, you probably can’t make it in the league. It’s more important that a draft pick be absolutely excellent in one category than that he be decent at a few. I learned this the hard way after dismissing prospects with glaring weaknesses who happened to boast that One Great Attribute. People can debate LaMelo Ball’s career so far, but I was too down on him as a pro talent on account of his lower level shooting/scoring struggles. In retrospect, it was just more important that he had A+ playmaking.

The One Great Attribute (OGA) is essential for all development that follows. It’s the foundation on which everything else gets built. If you’re an elite shooter, you can leverage the threat into moves that take advantage of a defense primed to stop your shot. If you’re merely OK at a range of skills, you provoke no defensive adjustment.

What does this have to do with politics? Not much, maybe, except for the idea that it’s very difficult to be generic on the biggest stage. Say what you will about Donald Trump, but he is not generic. Joe Biden was sort of pitched to the public as generic in 2020, but was also quite famous by that point, and blessed with an outwardly warm charisma. Point being, in the modern era, I don’t think you can just run an empty suit for president. Or you can, but by theoretically playing it safe, you’re risking a lot. Your candidate needs a thing, similar to how a draft prospect needs a thing. Divorced from the election at hand, the idea is that some stages are too pressurized for “basic” to suffice.