Oct 31st, 2018
...................
My first post in this series appeared on the 4th of July.
...................
What I'm describing is an outside-the-box campaign for president that would include multiple candidates committing to serving together in a Democratic administration (a similar case could also be made for Republicans, if Trump is gone by 2020).
Why not a single candidate?
1) The modern presidency is arguably too big a job for one person.
2) Multiple candidates could build up the party brand during primary season, rather than come out the other end of a bitter nomination fight.
3) Usually, a single candidate has a difficult time appealing to, for example, small town Whites and urban Blacks; with multiple candidates on a team, each can speak to their own comfort zone.
In this update, I make the case for a limited, 3-candidate pact, with an additional four non-competing members assigned to overseeing the Economy, Justice, Defense, and Diplomacy. Plus, one moderator/spokesperson to handle the media and keep everyone united.
The 8-member line-up, beginning with the five non-candidates:
Oprah Winfrey: Moderator/Spokesperson
Hillary Clinton: Diplomacy
Joe Biden: Defense
Elizabeth Warren: Economy
Kamala Harris: Justice
Amy Klobuchar: candidate
Cory Booker: candidate
Julian Castro: candidate
The pact that Klobuchar, Booker and Castro agree to is:
1. The winner becomes the Democratic nominee for president
2. The runner-up becomes the nominee for vice-president
3. The second runner-up is appointed to a cabinet post
But why have I picked Klobuchar, Booker and Castro? The field would of course be open to any number of candidates, but being part of a pact might provide our three with an edge. And,
* they're each eloquent speakers
* they each have 'comfort zones': Midwest/Women, Urban/Black, and Youth/Hispanic, respectively
* they each seem 'nice' and upbeat
Freed from the daily news cycle (Oprah would handle that), and the need to run themselves ragged (they'd need only a third the campaign time, minimum) our candidates would instead feel energized and prepared ahead of appearances and press interviews, and able to talk at some depth with voters at town hall meetings and other public venues.
Even more importantly, there'd be no stature gap that comes when voters say: "Is that it?" after a field of candidates is whittled down to one. Plus, our candidates would have five older, respected, hands-on -deck to make their general election Republican opponents look like landlubbers who hadn't found their sea legs yet.
Which is how the current Republican administration comes across. And to appear as the adults in the room, it would surely be best to present voters with good ideas, rather than point out ineptitude; having experts on one's team would likely be enough of a reminder.
.....................
Response to Alex Voltaire:
Yesterday, Oct. 31st, my friend Alex tweeted this in reaction to the above:
"oh no...we've got to stop putting incumbent senators in cabinet spots...it only puts Senate seats in play that wouldn't otherwise be competitive, yes?"
In the past, he's suggested incumbent senators be named to cabinet posts, and I've bugged him about it (see his blog: The Northumbrian Countdown), so I have to admit that he may be right. But, with a very minor tweak, I think my suggested 3-candidate pact will withstand critical scrutiny.
And that's because Klobuchar and Booker, who are both senators, would be hard to replace as presidential candidates. Their personalities and their connection to community make them more valuable than other possibilities.
* Klobuchar has a calm but firm manner that plays well in rural areas (where, in Minnesota's hinterlands, she did surprisingly well in her 2012 re-election bid). This is what Democrats need to nail down mid-western states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, possibly even Iowa and Ohio, not to mention Minnesota.
* Booker has an effervescent manner that projects action. Getting the Black vote to turn out at 2012 levels is crucial in states like North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. And inspiring younger voters with a sportsman's hustle is a rare plus.
Actually, in my Fourth of July article, linked to above, I specifically say that the only senators I considered were from likely-D Blue states. The odds are that not only Booker, but Klobuchar as well, would be replaced by a Democrat (governorships in both states are Blue)
What about Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris? This is where my one tweak comes in. Let's say that both these non-candidate 'adults-in-the-room' could be switched out after the election. Their role would be to provide guidance in their respective area of expertise. After the election, Harris could be switched out for Eric Holder, for example; Warren, for Bloomberg, say. Or, more likely, they could simply 'oversee' their turf, while retaining their Senatorial responsibilities.
So, essentially, we'd be taking a single risk, with Cory Booker's seat (if he were Veep), or Klobuchar's (if she were). (Julian Castro is of course not a senator). A single risk, because if a Senator Klobuchar wins the presidency under normal circumstances, that's one senate seat in peril; so, making it two is adding only one, which seems doable if we're talking about New Jersey. Unless, of course, one has a policy of voting against all sitting senators in a primary election.
Now let's look at which 2020 candidates are getting all the attention. A Politico article from two days ago gives us this breakdown:
Bernie -17
Biden -12
Avenatti -11
Warren - 11
Harris - 8
Booker - 8
O’Roark - 5
Klobuchar - 5
Kerry - 4
Gillibrand - 4
Bloomberg - 3
Holder - 3
Garcetti - 2
These are just percentages of all media mentions, but it could be viewed as a proxy for likelihood as a candidate.
Interestingly, only Bernie remains as a potential challenger to our pact, assuming Biden, Warren and Harris take on the adults-in-the-room roles we've assigned them (Avenatti is assumed to be unelectable, and O'Roark could be a purple state senator). It's tempting to fit Bernie in somehow, but Warren could conceivably convince him to stay out--he may have deferred his bid in 2016 until he knew she wasn't running. That would leave only lower tier candidates, which would make our pact not all that unlikely.
Is a 3-candidate pact (with adults-in-the-room backing from an additional 5 non-candidates) in any way possible? It would probably take someone like former President Obama to get everyone on board, but a 'team' approach may make sense. If I were Obama, I might look into it.
No comments:
Post a Comment