New! Improved!
Democrats don't need to despair that there is no clear successor to Biden.
The early primaries take care of that.
President Biden says he plans to run again in 2024. He doesn't want the Democratic agenda to look rudderless going into the 2022 midterms. Maybe he is so vain he really believes that no Democrat but him can beat Trump, but I suspect this is just posturing. If he insists on running, there will be an awkward and ugly mess, but Democrats will get through even that.
 |
| 1968: "I shall not seek the nomination" |
The 1968 campaign for Democrats was a mess but the problem wasn't that Johnson's announcement opened up the race. That was the remedy.
Democrats worry there is no one on deck with a huge, national presence, no one like Hillary Clinton in 2015. Being nationally known, with a well established brand, is both head start and anchor. Friends come and go; political enemies accumulate. Long resumes include embarrassing old votes and comments made in a different political era.
Trump's celebrity and brand was an early advantage for him. I was in New Hampshire and saw his crowds, beginning at his first rally. People wanted to see in person the decisive billionaire tycoon they had seen on TV.
 |
| 2015: Crowd of 3,000 in Rochester, New Hampshire |
It was a big head start, but what really mattered is that Trump is a gifted performer, with a schtick of ad-libbed humor, resentment, prosecutorial accusations, bluster, and policy talk that appealed to many Republican voters. Trump was interesting and other politicians were boring in comparison, Hillary especially. Trump earned the tailwind of nonstop TV coverage. News departments realized that audiences wanted to watch Trump. He might say anything. Trump's campaign turned him from a joke into a formidable candidate.
 |
| 2015: Trump crowd in Reno stood for 4 hours. |
No Democratic candidate would go into New Hampshire to do Town Halls with the visibility Trump had, but a free-for-all campaign would elevate one or more of them. Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Stacey Abrams, Bob Bennet, Gavin Newsom, Jared Polis, Sherrod Brown, Mitch Landrieu, and maybe a couple of Democratic billionaires may all decide they are the new voice of the American left. Some readers will look over this list and think "Seven Dwarves." Nobody has stature.
Stature is earned. You get it by exciting crowds, raising money, and winning elections. Then you have it. The pundit world has concluded that Kamala Harris underwhelms. That can change--or not. If she draws crowds, and if she says things people want to hear, and if she then beats other candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina, the story of Kamala Harris will be brand new. She will have presence. Or it could go another way, and Buttigieg or Landrieu or Amy Klobuchar seizes leadership out from under her. Surprise! Then that person has stature.
Power is not given away. It is seized. A candidate proves up by winning with a message. Wins brings more attention and more wins. The story changes from maybe to momentum. That culminates in a feeling of relief among Democrats. They will have chosen a new leader.
[Note: To receive the blog daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com The blog is free and always will be.]
8 comments:
If Andrew Cuomo hadn't permanently stubbed his toe in New York, then he would have been the clear Democratic Party front-runner for 2024 (even over Biden).
If you're going to run, then you have to be able to boast of past achievements. What are Buttigieg's or Harris' achievements? Getting elected is not an achievement. Neither Harris nor Buttigieg have excelled in their present or past positions. Conversely, Trump built a billion-dollar financial empire.
Another problem I see is when 20 candidates run in the primary. It dilutes the vote, and takes focus away from the best candidates. It occurred with both the Democrats and Republicans in 2020, and with the Oregon State GOP Governor's primary election in 2022. Fringe candidates consume too much voter time and resources. Some candidates have no chance of winning, and they just obfuscate the waters. It's good to have a wide-choice of candidates, but at some point, too many candidates running in the primary ruins things.
Curt Ankerberg
Medford, OR
Trump rose to power by appealing to the worst in us with such promises as building the Great Wall of Trump and making Mexico pay for it, banning Muslims, etc.
The U.S. is facing at least three existential crises: climate change, an ever-increasing national debt that’s already greater than our GDP, and a major political party that tried to overturn our democracy. Our government has proven unwilling and unable to deal with these issues. It’s hard to imagine any one person capable of turning that around, but if it isn’t turned around, and soon, then who is president may become a moot point.
Power is not given away. It is seized. A candidate proves up by winning with a message. Wins brings more attention and more wins. The story changes from maybe to momentum. That culminates in a feeling of relief among Democrats. They will have chosen a new leader.
Well, sometimes.
Other times, there is someone who the elites think should be anointed, and you end up with Hillary. The political “marketplace“ doesn’t always produce optimal results.
To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: “you’re no RFK, Pete.”
Truth
If Andrew Cuomo hadn't permanently stubbed his toe …
It wasn’t his toe. :-)
It will be Kamala Harris.
Her VP pick will be tricky. Male? White? Centrist? OK with African Americans? OK with young voters? OK with Coastal Elites? (OK, kidding with that one...)
Yikes!
Try watching Kamala Harris give a speech with the sound turned off. What I see is a combination of sadness and uncertainty. Not likely to be winning presidential charisma.
Post a Comment