Presidential campaigns don't spring out of the ground fully formed. There was a time when a powerful politician could hang back and wait for the convention, but that strategy started to become less viable around the mid-twentieth century. Johnson tried it in 1960 and ended up on the bottom of the ticket with Kennedy who had gone around the country winning support and primaries the hard way. From then on, primaries and caucuses became an increasingly important part of the process to the point where they pretty much have the final say these days. Remember in '08 how enraged everyone got that the "super-delegates" might try to thwart the will of the people? To me, that indicates that we won't see a surprise convention nominee anytime soon.
As a result, mounting a presidential primary campaign is no small task. You have to build support at the grassroots level. Even if you have a big name to scare away the pretenders and would-be dark horses, it doesn't always work out that way. Again, look at '08. Clinton tried to coast through, while Obama focused on the nuts and bolts of amassing delegates. It takes a pretty impressive organization to pull that off.
It is true that the person who has the highest name recognition is almost always going to be the front runner starting out. Because who's going to say they'd vote for someone that they've never heard of? So it's no surprise that later in his post, Bernstein links to a link to a link (rabbit holes!) about 2016 shaping up to be a clash of the big names.
CLINTON VS BUSH: REMATCH BABY!
 |
| The sweet embrace of political dynasty. |
This will probably be the conventional wisdom for quite some time. Why? Well, for one thing, it's not a completely ridiculous scenario. The Clinton brand has skyrocketed in value over the last four years. Sure, Hillary will be on the older side of the spectrum for nominees by then. But that kind of fits with the role of elder stateswoman that she has assumed within the party. Everyone seems to agree that the nomination is hers for the taking. (And this time, we totally mean it!)
Jeb Bush is a bit more of a stretch. The Bush brand lies in a smoldering crater at the moment and I would guess that Obama's re-election pretty much cemented the idea of Bush as a failed president in the country's eyes. The more successful Obama is, the worse Bush looks in retrospect. It's the same way that Carter and Reagan's reputations seem to be forever linked. As one has grown in popularity, the other has deflated. Exit polls showed that voters still blame Bush for our current economic woes more than Obama. Now that Obama is staying put to see through the slow-but-steady recovery, he'll be portrayed as the strong leader who saved us from the wreckage of the second Bush presidency. That sound you're not hearing is people clamoring for a third.
Eight years does not seem like enough time for attitudes to change. Of course, Richard Nixon became a national punchline only to emerge a few years later to capture the presidency. But all that he had done by 1968 was lose a couple of elections. This would be more akin to putting the Nixon name on the ticket eight years after Watergate when it was poison. Sure, Jeb Bush is not his brother. For years, we've been told that he's actually the smart one that would have made a great president if only the torch had passed to him over his older brother. It's hard to say if that's actually true or not. Consider that W was sold to the country in 2000 wrapped in basically the same compassionate conservative aura that now surrounds Jeb.
(quick side note: Jeb stands for John Ellis Bush. Gob stands for George Oscar Bluth. There is definitely a Bush/Bluth comparison post to be written at some point.)
To be sure, Clinton is the 800lb gorilla in the room at this point. Bush probably not so much. Still, you can expect to see that headline pop up again and again over the next couple years.
No comments:
Post a Comment