Hillary Clinton has dominated the Democratic presidential discussion like few other candidates before her. Two years out from the Iowa caucuses, she already has a top-tier super PAC, a grassroots organizing machine, dozens of big donors ready to open their wallets, and massive support from Democratic voters. It’s unprecedented in modern politics, veteran Washington operatives agree.
But her inevitability masks a potential weakness within the Democratic Party: the lack of a deep bench of future national leaders. For a coalition that prides itself on diversity, the list of presidential hopefuls is filled with white men: Vice President Joe Biden, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer. With Clinton, the party that nominated Barack Obama in 2008 is now looking to the past for their presidential hopeful.
Furthermore, the Democratic dependence on Hillary Clinton hampers the development of a Democratic farm team. With Clinton expected to take up so much room in the post-Obama party, is there much room for anyone else?
Parties typically develop national leaders and future candidates through the primary process. This is especially true for Republicans, who have famously nominated the runner-up in the previous cycle’s primary contests nearly every election since 1976.
By 2016, it will have been eight years since Democrats have had a contested primary, and if Clinton is effectively anointed the nominee and wins the presidency (still two big ifs), it will have been 16 years by the 2024 cycle. That’s a long time without the incubation chamber for national leaders that primaries provide. A run, or even the anticipation thereof, draws media attention and voters’ interest, boosting the potential candidate’s national profile.
Republicans have developed a farm team of up-and-coming elected officials considering presidential bids. Just look at leaders in their 40s who, if not candidates themselves, can at least serve as national surrogates for the party. In the Congress there’s Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas, along with 2012 vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan. In the statehouses, there’s Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Most have positioned themselves as part of a new generation of reformers.
The story is very different for Democrats. There are just two well-known potential 2016 candidates in their 40s: Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Cory Booker of New Jersey. Ask Democratic strategists for examples of other younger up-and-comers, and you’ll hear names like Julian and Joaquin Castro, the congressman and San Antonio mayor, respectively. And California Attorney General Kamala Harris is always touted, despite her limited political experience.
That’s not only the fault of Clinton’s shadow. The 2010 Republican wave wiped out many Democratic officeholders, including many governors, who are traditionally the primary pool of presidential contenders.
Since Clinton promises to be a formidable candidate, this may not matter in the short-term. And even if she doesn’t run — which those close to her insist is possible — her decision will open the floodgates for a slew of potential candidates who have said they will not jump in as long the former secretary of State is running.
“If Hillary doesn’t run, there are a lot of substantive potential candidates,” one Democratic strategist noted. There are plenty of good options among those who have already expressed an interest in running — including Biden, who is the overwhelming non-Hillary favorite in early polling — and probably others we’re not even talking about yet.
Still, many Democratic players think the party’s voters will demand a woman to lead their ticket in 2016, or a person of color. If true, that would diminish most of the remaining likely candidates.
The obvious options dwindle from there. There’s Gillibrand and Booker, along with Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is rumored to be eyeing a bid. There’s Elizabeth Warren, though the Massachusetts senator repeatedly said she won’t run.
What happens beyond 2016? It’s a long way off, but building a farm team of young, compelling leaders takes time, and Democrats may want to be asking themselves that question before it’s too late.
What We're Following See More »
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.”
“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.