Presidential races
I admit to half ignoring the race for the nomination. I live in a state where I have an under 50% chance of caucusing in time to have a say in the nomination, and that provides a bit of a disincentive to pay attention. Sure, I can participate in the money-primary, but historically I haven't done so and probably won't start any time soon.
That said, I do have a candidate in mind, Bill Richardson. My reason for supporting him is decidedly unscientific nor is it based on things like issues. Or even that I like his hair or something. No. Of the top four democratic candidates, he is the only governor. And Governors win presidencies when running against Senators. I want a democrat in the White House in 2009, and that means I should support a Governor. QED.
I think this has something to do with Senators being on the national stage and Governors merely having executive experience. Hillary has spend years explaining away her 'yea' vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq. This sort of thing is a common experience with Senators running for President. The Senate, and to a lesser extent the House, requires an understanding of nuance to really know a candidate. Unfortunately for Senators running for President, nuance is devilishly hard to convey convincingly to Joe Average Voter; and gets even harder when the Opposition starts pounding out ads emphasizing what the vote looked like rather than what it was supposed to do.
In modern Presidential politics, Senators suffer a disadvantage to Governors when it comes time for the general election. The race for the nomination is a different critter, since likely voters (or caucus attendees) are those who are more likely to understand nuance and thus a Senator will do a bit better than during the real race. Kennedy was the last Senator to be elected President while still in the Senate, and American politics have changed markedly since his time.
Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all Senators. Edwards has the advantage of not being currently a Senator, though he was as recently as 2005 which may be too recent to save him. Obama has the advantage of not being a Senator for very long. Clinton has the advantage of being a Clinton, and that's about it.
Of the big three, Clinton is by far the most vulnerable to Senator-itis. Edwards served longer, but a lot of his skeletons came out in the 2004 campaign, and he is no longer a seated Senator. Obama hasn't been a Senator for very long, and just maybe, maybe, hasn't been in the Chamber long enough to build up enough potentially embarrassing votes.
Over on the Republican side, they seem to have figured this trick out. Of the top three polling candidates, there are two Governors, and a Mayor of a city larger than some states. Running in 4th place is the Senator.
With the Republicans almost guaranteed to nominate a non-Senator, it is paramount in my mind that the Democrats nominate a non-Senator. Unfortunately, I don't think that'll happen unless some form of "Iowa Surprise" hits and Richardson suddenly starts gaining in the polls. Which tells me that the next President will most likely be a Republican, which causes me to grind my teeth.
That said, I do have a candidate in mind, Bill Richardson. My reason for supporting him is decidedly unscientific nor is it based on things like issues. Or even that I like his hair or something. No. Of the top four democratic candidates, he is the only governor. And Governors win presidencies when running against Senators. I want a democrat in the White House in 2009, and that means I should support a Governor. QED.
I think this has something to do with Senators being on the national stage and Governors merely having executive experience. Hillary has spend years explaining away her 'yea' vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq. This sort of thing is a common experience with Senators running for President. The Senate, and to a lesser extent the House, requires an understanding of nuance to really know a candidate. Unfortunately for Senators running for President, nuance is devilishly hard to convey convincingly to Joe Average Voter; and gets even harder when the Opposition starts pounding out ads emphasizing what the vote looked like rather than what it was supposed to do.
In modern Presidential politics, Senators suffer a disadvantage to Governors when it comes time for the general election. The race for the nomination is a different critter, since likely voters (or caucus attendees) are those who are more likely to understand nuance and thus a Senator will do a bit better than during the real race. Kennedy was the last Senator to be elected President while still in the Senate, and American politics have changed markedly since his time.
Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all Senators. Edwards has the advantage of not being currently a Senator, though he was as recently as 2005 which may be too recent to save him. Obama has the advantage of not being a Senator for very long. Clinton has the advantage of being a Clinton, and that's about it.
Of the big three, Clinton is by far the most vulnerable to Senator-itis. Edwards served longer, but a lot of his skeletons came out in the 2004 campaign, and he is no longer a seated Senator. Obama hasn't been a Senator for very long, and just maybe, maybe, hasn't been in the Chamber long enough to build up enough potentially embarrassing votes.
Over on the Republican side, they seem to have figured this trick out. Of the top three polling candidates, there are two Governors, and a Mayor of a city larger than some states. Running in 4th place is the Senator.
With the Republicans almost guaranteed to nominate a non-Senator, it is paramount in my mind that the Democrats nominate a non-Senator. Unfortunately, I don't think that'll happen unless some form of "Iowa Surprise" hits and Richardson suddenly starts gaining in the polls. Which tells me that the next President will most likely be a Republican, which causes me to grind my teeth.
posted by Corwin at 10:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home