President Trump? Stranger Things Might Happen

Political, social forces make the 2016 presidential race unpredictably interesting.

National Journal
Ron Fournier
Jan. 13, 2014, 4:21 a.m.

The ques­tion is ab­surdly pre­ma­ture, but we can’t help ourselves. Who’s go­ing to win the pres­id­ency in 2016?

“There are ba­sic­ally 50 life­times between now and then, so a lot’s go­ing to change,” Demo­crat­ic op­er­at­ive Dav­id Plouffe said Sunday, after re­luct­antly agree­ing with This Week host Martha Rad­datz that Demo­crat Hil­lary Clin­ton and Re­pub­lic­an Chris Christie are front-run­ners for the party nom­in­a­tions.

“I pre­dict that a year from now we’re go­ing to be talk­ing about an­oth­er can­did­ate — some oth­er can­did­ate who has lit the fire in either party,” said Mat­thew Dowd, who worked for Pres­id­ent George W. Bush, but now is an in­de­pend­ent voice on This Week.

“I agree with that, for a change,” chuckled Demo­crat­ic op­er­at­ive Donna Brazile.

Dowd is right. It’s far too soon to speak with au­thor­ity about the next pres­id­en­tial cam­paign, and there are many reas­ons to sus­pect that the 2016 race will be re­shaped — if not won — by a can­did­ate who’s not yet on Wash­ing­ton’s radar. Here are four factors to con­sider.

His­tory is a guide. In June 2006, the Gal­lup Poll found Clin­ton with a wide lead over oth­er 2008 pres­id­en­tial hope­fuls, while Rudy Gi­uliani held a slight lead in the GOP race. Clin­ton even­tu­ally lost to then-Sen. Barack Obama, who was not even among the 10 Demo­crat­ic can­did­ates lis­ted by Gal­lup in 2006. He was that far off the radar. Gi­uliani, of course, washed out of the GOP cam­paign soon after it ac­tu­ally began.  (That poll was taken six months deep­er in­to the 2008 cycle than today is for the 2016 cam­paign.)

In­sur­gent cam­paigns flare late. Ross Perot was a cipher two years out from the 1992 cam­paign, and nobody in 2002 con­sidered Howard Dean a ser­i­ous can­did­ate for the 2004 Demo­crat­ic nom­in­a­tion. Neither man won, but they both put a scare in­to the es­tab­lish­ment and had a sig­ni­fic­ant im­pact on U.S. policy and polit­ics bey­ond their cam­paigns.

Voters are sick of the status quo. The pub­lic’s trust in gov­ern­ment, polit­ics, and polit­ic­al parties is at re­cord lows, ac­cord­ing to a vari­ety of polls. A re­cord-high 42 per­cent of Amer­ic­an identi­fy as polit­ic­al in­de­pend­ents, Gal­lup found this month. Re­pub­lic­an iden­ti­fic­a­tion felt to 25 per­cent, the low­est Gal­lup has meas­ured since it began con­duct­ing in­ter­views by tele­phone 25 years ago. Demo­crat­ic iden­ti­fic­a­tion is un­changed from the last four years, at 31 per­cent, but that’s the low­est an­nu­al av­er­age in a quarter-cen­tury.

The pub­lic’s hun­ger for change fueled the in­sur­gent cam­paigns of Perot, Dean, and Obama, and it could spur a new one. Wrench­ing eco­nom­ic trans­ition, new tech­no­lo­gies that em­power the masses, and the lift­ing of lim­its on cam­paign dona­tions could make a 2016 in­sur­gency swift and sur­pris­ingly po­tent.

Brands are more fra­gile than ever. Busi­nesses lead­ers are strug­gling to build and main­tain their cor­por­ate repu­ta­tions in a crowded, cyn­ic­al, and fast-chan­ging mar­ket­place of ideas. “So, this is where we find ourselves: a world in which brands can be in­cred­ibly power­ful, but more chal­len­ging and more ex­pens­ive than ever to cre­ate and main­tain, and less re­si­li­ent,” writes Jonath­an Copul­sky in Brand Re­si­li­ence: Man­aging Risk and Re­cov­ery in a High-speed World.

The same forces con­spir­ing against cor­por­ate brands are a threat to polit­ic­al repu­ta­tions, a par­tic­u­lar chal­lenge for the likes of Clin­ton (“Memo to Hil­lary Clin­ton: You’re the Prob­lem”) and Christie (“How Christie Can Save His Ca­reer”).

In­sti­tu­tion­al blur­ring could lead to cros­sov­er. The Pew Re­search Cen­ter has doc­u­mented a dec­ades-long de­cline in the pub­lic’s faith in U.S. in­sti­tu­tions, in­clud­ing busi­nesses, schools, churches, char­it­ies, me­dia or­gan­iz­a­tions, and, of course, polit­ics and gov­ern­ment. As these silos weak­en, the pub­lic will be in­creas­ingly more open to people and brands that defy in­sti­tu­tion­al bound­ar­ies. Bit­coin, for ex­ample, is a di­git­al cur­rency in­vad­ing the space of tra­di­tion­al fin­an­cial in­sti­tu­tions.

How might this ap­ply to polit­ics? The bar­ri­ers to entry will be lower. We’re far more likely to see a pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate emerge from out­side the tra­di­tion­al polit­ic­al com­munity. A pro­voc­at­ive thought: In our celebrity-in­fused cul­ture, why couldn’t the next game-chan­ging in­sur­gent can­did­ate — if not pres­id­ent — emerge from the world of sports or en­ter­tain­ment? Cer­tainly, the path from a cor­por­ate suite to the Oval Of­fice is less cluttered than usu­al.

Pres­id­ent Trump? No way. The Amer­ic­an pub­lic is too smart to let that hap­pen. But stranger things might.

DIS­CLOS­URE: I wrote a book in 2005 with Dowd and Demo­crat Doug Sosnik about lead­er­ship of polit­ic­al, busi­ness, and re­li­gious or­gan­iz­a­tions.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4655) }}

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
2 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×