There has been much grief from lesser candidates in the Democrat field that there are only going to be 6 debates. There are 19 declared candidates though I doubt most Democrat voters could name more than 3. Of course, only the top five are of note:
Hillary Clinton: Former Secretary of State, New York Senator, First Lady. She is the current front runner. Her email scandal is damaging her standing. On account of this, the top three words associated with her in a Quinnipiac poll were "liar," "dishonest," and "untrustworthy." She has more than a year to counter that but the continued bleeding and lack of resolution with the email server will be an anchor on her campaign. She is a member of the New Nobility.
Bernie Sanders: Vermont Senator, former Congressman, former Mayor of Burlington. He is a self-described socialist and Clinton's most successful rival at this point. Bernie is an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. Unlike Democrats who only offer lip service to opposing Wall Street (while taking the lion's share of political donations from them), Bernie is a true believer. As such, the party elites do not want him.
Martin O'Malley: Former Maryland Governor and Baltimore Mayor. He barely registers in the polls at this point, thus his strong interest in lots of debates. He is likely hamstrung by the failure of his hand-picked successor to win the governorship. Also, the recent trouble in Baltimore reflects on him, fairly or not. However, he is a solid Democrat with executive experience who doesn't have the baggage of Hillary or the outspoken socialism of Bernie.
Jim Webb: Former Virginia Senator and Secretary of the Navy. He served in the Reagan administration and is too pro-military and bipartisan to win the Democratic nomination. The most conservative of this leftist field, he is going no where.
Lincoln Chafee: Former Rhode Island Governor, Senator, Mayor of Warwick. Former Republican, former Independent. Lincoln was a liberal Republican back when that was openly allowed. He has since transitioned to a Democrat. He wants the US to switch to the Metric System. He is a member of the New Nobility.
The choice of the party elites is clearly Hillary, thus the desire for as few debates as possible. Hillary lacks her husband's charm and political instincts, thus debates are likely to harm her candidacy while simultaneously offering alternative candidates. The last time the voters were given an alternative to Hillary, they took him.
Of late, there has been a growing 'Draft Biden' movement that would like to see Vice President Joe Biden jump into the race. For the political novice, this might sound like a great idea but Biden has plenty of baggage himself, from plagiarism to inaccurately reporting his voting record on issues like Iraq. This is a man who lost the nomination to Dukakis in 1988.
There is also some hope that, if Hillary falters, Elizabeth Warren might jump into the race. Warren is quite popular with the base, probably more so than Hillary. This popularity with the base is unlikely to translate to the general election voter. I see her as the counterpart of Ann Coulter; Coulter is hugely popular with the base but couldn't possibly hope to get elected because of her divisive nature. Warren has had electoral success in the bluest of blue states. Let's see, how did Dukakis do on the national scene?
Obviously, I am opposed to all of these candidates but with no incumbent, it does strike me as fair to have lots of debates to give the voters an opportunity to get to know the candidates. The Republicans have already had two debates, the second of which has so far been great for Carly Fiorina. O'Malley, Webb, and Chafee certainly wish they had such an opportunity to connect with the voters. They should get it and the base agrees.
No comments:
Post a Comment