Democrats have a
real problem on their hands. The
(overwhelming) frontrunner and (so far) presumptive nominee for their party’s
nomination for President is embroiled in controversy and scandal, is now losing
to several Republicans in head-to-head match-ups, and is distrusted by a large
majority of Americans, including Democrats themselves. How did the party get to this point?
Part of the
party’s problem is that it really didn’t have much of a credible alternative to
nominating Hillary Clinton. Beginning in
2010, Republicans began winning incredibly important statewide positions such
as governorships and senate seats that could have been used by Democrats to
launch a national campaign. Democrats
now hold only 19 governorships and 46 senate seats, and the large majority of
those members have little-to-no national profile.
Six months ago,
that didn’t seem to be much of a problem, however. For years it had been assumed that Hillary
would run for President, and more like the way the Republican Party once chose
its nominee, Democrats were deferential to Clinton, feeling as though it was
her turn. After all, she was still
viewed favorably by a majority of Americans, and it appeared as though she held
a monolithic bloc of support among Democrats for the nomination.
In essence,
Clinton has spent the last few years boxing out other Democrats from jumping in
or even considering joining the race to become President. The ‘inevitability’ card didn’t work for
Hillary in 2008, but that was largely due to the fact that Democrats had a very
large bench and a formidable challenger in Barack Obama. But Hillaryland was confident the same would
not happen in 2016, largely due to the aforementioned reasons.
But now Democrats
are (or should be) regretting allowing this to happen. With each passing day comes a new story
detailing Clinton’s woes caused by her email scandal. And it isn’t just coming from conservative
news sites, as Hillary would like us all to believe. Some of the worst news has come from sources
like the New York Times, Washington Post, and even the Obama administration, as
its Justice Department and FBI are now investigating if there was any
wrongdoing.
Even if it
magically turns out that Clinton did nothing wrong (and that is appearing
increasingly unlikely), Democrats should not nominate this flawed
candidate. This has nothing to do with
ideology; in fact, on most major issues, Hillary’s views are smack-dab in the
middle of where the rest of the Democratic Party is. In fact, she’s rarely broken with President
Obama on any major or minor policy issue.
The issue lies
with her trustworthiness, or lack thereof.
Americans deserve a President whom they can trust. They deserve an election between two candidates
for whom they want to vote. Americans don’t want to vote for “the lesser
of two evils”, as I have heard it put numerous times.
If Hillary
Clinton is chosen as the Democrats’ nominee, their party will likely lose next
November. Despite the circus that is the
current Republican primary, the GOP will likely nominate a credible candidate. And while his or her views may not end up
aligning with the majority of Americans’ views, the public will still likely
choose that Republican, because he or she will be viewed as more honest and
trustworthy.
So what options
do Democrats have? For starters, there
are the candidates currently declared to be running: Bernie Sanders, Martin
O’Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee.
Obviously, at this point, Sanders is the only challenger to Clinton who
has more than one or two percent of support from Democratic voters (he is
currently averaging 25% in the RCP poll of polls).
Bernie certainly
has the enthusiastic support of many Democrats.
His rallies are the largest of any candidate, Democrat or Republican,
and they are even rivaling the size of President Obama’s. Sanders has held consistent liberal beliefs
and has even attracted support from those normally disaffected with
politics. It is possible, like Obama
before him, he could bring in and attract new voters and independents.
However,
Sander’s own liberal views could be his downfall in a general election. Whether his supporters want to admit it or
not, his self-described socialist label will likely turn off more independents
than it will attract. His positions are
much more liberal than the country as a whole, and it is unlikely he would
survive a general election. Further, his
age would make him the oldest President ever elected. In the past six elections, Americans have
always elected the younger of the two candidates.
Then we have
Martin O’Malley. On paper, O’Malley
seems like an ideal alternative to Clinton.
He has eight years of executive experience as Maryland’s Governor, and
before that he was mayor of Baltimore.
As Governor, he championed liberal causes like ending the death penalty,
legalizing gay marriage, and raising the minimum wage, among others. He is relatively young and energetic and,
fairly or not, looks like he could be
a President.
But O’Malley
isn’t catching fire anywhere, largely due to the fact that Clinton and Sanders
have sucked up all the oxygen in the media.
October’s debate will be the first chance for O’Malley to truly show his
skills and ideas when matched up against the other two, but so far, he doesn’t
have a national organization that would be ready to turn increased support into
actual votes.
Jim Webb and
Lincoln Chafee are both in a category even lower than O’Malley. Webb is likely much too conservative for the
Democratic base. And while he would
likely be a good general election candidate (former Senator from Virginia, a
swing state; a decorated former navy veteran; fairly blunt-spoken), he is not a
good primary election candidate. Chafee
has been a Republican and Independent before recently switching to the
Democratic Party. While his views align
with most Democratic voters, he has zero national profile and has terrible
politicking skills.
Which leads us
to any other candidates who haven’t yet declared. Vice President Biden is the most obvious
choice. He clearly has the experience
necessary to become President. His views
align well with the Democratic base and are often more liberal than even
Obama’s. Unlike most candidates who
would jump into the race at this late stage, Biden would likely be able to
raise the money and organization to at least compete nationally by the time the
primaries are under way.
Biden’s main
problem is that he wouldn’t be seen as a change candidate in an election that
will likely want just that. Any Democrat
will have trouble making the case that they are not just another four more
years of Obama’s Presidency, but for Obama’s VP, that case would be nearly
impossible to make.
Should Biden
decide to run, he would need to decide immediately. It will take time for the organization to be
built and the funds raised. More
importantly, it will take time for Democrats to realize that Hillary is
vulnerable and that Biden is a much more credible alternative.
There aren’t
many other options left for Democrats.
Elizabeth Warren, once thought to be a true challenger to Clinton, has
ruled out running, and it seems as though she will stick to that. In any case, if she jumped in now, she would
likely just split the more liberal vote that is already supporting
Sanders. Al Gore is also unlikely to
decide to run, and he wouldn’t be a great candidate for Democrats anyway.
Are Democrats
now stuck with Clinton? Not
necessarily. But they need to realize
quickly that her problems are not going to go away, and will only likely get
worse. Democrats should stop supporting
Clinton now in the hope that she will either drop out or that someone else will
be able to start gaining traction.
