The Democrats’ Distress

With a bench of presidential contenders that is painfully thin, the party’s choices are Clinton and… uh, Clinton.

Getty Images
Add to Briefcase
Charlie Cook
Sept. 11, 2015, 5 a.m.

Let’s start with the chil­dren’s book and re­cent movie, Al­ex­an­der and the Ter­rible, Hor­rible, No Good, Very Bad Day, then sub­sti­tute Hil­lary Clin­ton for Al­ex­an­der and year for day. Hardly ori­gin­al: A Google search of the re­vised title turns up more than 200,000 hits. But apt.

Clin­ton’s 2015 star­ted out look­ing so prom­ising. Her second shot at the Demo­crat­ic pres­id­en­tial nom­in­a­tion was as clean as nonin­cum­bents ever get. The feel­ing that she had a good chance of win­ning the gen­er­al elec­tion was con­sol­ing even to Demo­crats who wer­en’t her biggest fans.

Now, Demo­crats are get­ting ex­tremely nervous: Her elect­or­al pro­spects don’t look so sure. More voters now view Clin­ton un­fa­vor­ably than fa­vor­ably. Her once-strong leads over Re­pub­lic­an op­pon­ents have shrunk to with­in the mar­gin of er­ror. Al­though most Demo­crats still dis­miss the sub­stance of the con­tro­versy over her State De­part­ment emails, even the most starry-eyed must ac­know­ledge it has ex­posed her can­did­acy as far more fra­gile than in their worst night­mares.

So, what’s an anxious polit­ic­al party to do?

It’s pretty clear that Joe Biden, the pop­u­lar vice pres­id­ent, hasn’t de­cided yet wheth­er to jump in. He’s ob­vi­ously torn between a lifelong pas­sion to oc­cupy the Oval Of­fice and the real­it­ies of launch­ing a can­did­acy less than five months be­fore the first bal­lots are cast. Sit­ting vice pres­id­ents don’t have the lux­ury of run­ning in­sur­gent, guer­illa-type cam­paigns; the se­cur­ity re­quire­ments alone would mean an ex­pens­ive cam­paign. Add to this the an­guish that Biden and his fam­ily con­tin­ue to ex­per­i­ence over the death just three and a half months ago of his 46-year-old son, Beau, and the ledger on his de­cision tips de­cidedly to­ward the don’t-run side. Maybe he’ll an­nounce his can­did­acy to­mor­row, but he prob­ably won’t, and every day that passes makes it less likely.

This brings us to Bernie Sanders, the sur­prise of the Demo­crat­ic cam­paign. It’s re­mark­able to me that the 74-year-old Ver­mont sen­at­or, who will be six years older next Elec­tion Day than Ron­ald Re­agan was in 1980, is be­ing taken this ser­i­ously. Has any mem­ber of Con­gress dur­ing the past 23 years been less con­sequen­tial, less ef­fect­ive, and taken less ser­i­ously than Sanders? Is there any Demo­crat­ic sen­at­or less able to win a na­tion­wide gen­er­al elec­tion?

Even giv­ing him the be­ne­fit of every doubt, Sanders will have a hard time gain­ing the nom­in­a­tion. Sup­pose he wins the act­iv­ist-dom­in­ated caucuses in Iowa, where polls show him trail­ing by only 8 per­cent­age points, and goes on to pre­vail in New Hamp­shire, where he’s ahead. Then what? There aren’t enough oth­er states with caucuses or with lily-white Demo­crat­ic primary elect­or­ates for a can­did­ate like Sanders, who draws little sup­port from voters of col­or, to beat Clin­ton, who runs well among minor­ity groups, ac­cord­ing to re­search by Geof­frey Skel­ley at the Uni­versity of Vir­gin­ia.

Only one potential candidate could go from a standstill to full speed in a short enough period of time, and it’s a name that would petrify Clinton’s headquarters: Elizabeth Warren. 

Though I’ve been luke­warm about Mar­tin O’Mal­ley, he has long ap­peared to be the only Demo­crat now run­ning who looks like a ser­i­ous al­tern­at­ive to Clin­ton. But every day that Sanders rules the hearts of the party’s lib­er­als is a day that the former Mary­land gov­ernor is de­prived of oxy­gen.

There’s little ques­tion the Demo­crat­ic bench of po­ten­tial con­tenders is pain­fully thin. We’ve already heard the rounds of spec­u­la­tion about Al Gore or John Kerry jump­ing in; neither looks ter­ribly plaus­ible. Get­ting in­to a race, or­gan­iz­ing a na­tion­wide cam­paign, and get­ting on bal­lots in 50 states—mundane in the­ory—is a daunt­ing feat in a short peri­od of time.

Few people un­der­stand the Demo­crat­ic del­eg­ate se­lec­tion pro­cess bet­ter than Elaine Kamar­ck, a seni­or fel­low at the Brook­ings In­sti­tu­tion. “A can­did­ate who is not on a primary bal­lot can’t win del­eg­ates from that state—pure and simple,” she and Ash­ley Gab­ri­ele wrote re­cently for Brook­ings. “And so miss­ing a fil­ing dead­line is akin to for­feit­ing del­eg­ates to the con­ven­tion.” By the end of Novem­ber, they point out, a pro­spect­ive can­did­ate will have for­feited about 500 votes; by year’s end, more than 1,000. By Janu­ary 15, dead­lines will have passed for more than half of the del­eg­ates to next year’s Demo­crat­ic con­ven­tion—the num­ber that’s needed to win.

Only one po­ten­tial can­did­ate could go from a stand­still to full speed in a short enough peri­od of time, and it’s a name that would pet­ri­fy Clin­ton’s headquar­ters: Eliza­beth War­ren. But the fresh­man sen­at­or from Mas­sachu­setts has stead­fastly shown no in­terest in run­ning.

The good news for Clin­ton is that, des­pite her dif­fi­culties, she is still very likely to win the Demo­crat­ic nom­in­a­tion. For her party, however, the elect­or­al out­look is less san­guine. Hav­ing pretty much de­cided early on to put all of their eggs in the Clin­ton bas­ket, they are now wor­ried that the bas­ket is flimsy. In the worst case, the party might turn to a Biden, but don’t ex­pect it.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.