A great paradox has fallen upon the Democratic Party. We are going to nominate a candidate for President of the United States who cannot win the election: Hillary Clinton. Regarding the nomination, she is inevitable; regarding the election, she is doomed. And that means we too are doomed. In 2017, the Republicans will own the White House and Capitol Hill, all ready to select the next Supreme Court Justice when Ruth Bader Ginsburg decides to retire.
Normally, except when an incumbent is running for reelection, there are so many contenders for a party’s nomination that we can just barely squeeze them all onto the stage during the debates, which is just one more reason to be thankful for wide-screen television. Certainly, the Republicans can be expected to satisfy this norm. But there is such a dearth of people planning to try for the Democratic nomination that we may have to prop up a few faux candidates just to keep Hillary from being all alone on the debate stage, promising them a chance for the Vice-Presidential slot, or perhaps giving them a forum to promote the book they just wrote. It will have all the authenticity of Vladimir Putin scoring a goal against a Russian hockey team.
It is odd that this is so. Joe Biden is the heir apparent. As the sitting Vice President, we would expect him to get the nomination. We have to go all the way back to 1952 to find a sitting Vice President, Alben Barkley, who wanted his party’s nomination but failed to get it. Of course, nominating a sitting Vice President is not really a winning strategy, inasmuch as only four have gone on to win the election in all of America’s history. But we tend nominate sitting Vice Presidents anyways, because it just seems to be the thing to do. Not so this time, however.
Other than the fact that sitting Vice Presidents tend to fail, there are other reasons why there is little enthusiasm for Joe Biden. First of all, he has already tried to get the nomination twice before, thus marking him as something of a loser. But Hillary has run and lost too. He has been caught plagiarizing the works of others, but that is no worse than a lot of Hillary’s unseemly shenanigans. And Biden does like to feel up the women, but what is a little unwanted groping compared to Bill Clinton’s womanizing?
A possible reason for the reluctance of Biden and other Democrats to run for the nomination is their misguided notion that Hillary stands a good chance of being the first woman to become President of the United States, and no one wants to be the one to spoil that dream. Of course, there are other female Democrats who could run for the nomination, but I have heard that they are reluctant to do so for a similar reason, a kind of sisterhood loyalty. Among those, Elizabeth Warren’s name is often heard, but her Shermanesque denial of any interest in running appears to be final.
And so, as things stand now, we are left with the dismal prospect of nominating a candidate who will lose. We can, however, turn her inevitability as the nominee into an opportunity to engage in some electoral mischief. William F. Buckley is known for enunciating the dictum that Republicans should nominate the most conservative electable candidate. We should turn that dictum on its head during the Republican primaries, and vote for the most moderate unelectable candidate in their field. That is, we want the candidate to be moderate enough to have a chance of winning the nomination, and yet be unelectable in the general. For some of us, voting in a Republican primary will be easy. In Texas, where I live, one does not have to be a registered party member to vote in a primary. In other states, depending on the rules, now may be a good time to register as a Republican in order to be ready for mischief sometime next year. Those of us who are really dedicated might attend the caucuses and act as agents provocateurs, encouraging others to vote foolishly.
All that remains is deciding whom we should vote for. Recent polls can give us some idea as to who might do, but common sense will also be our guide. For example, Ben Carson is in the double digits, but he has never held political office. As Mark Shields once noted, Americans do not regard the presidency as an entry-level position. So, there is no point in wasting a vote on someone who has no chance of securing the nomination, even though his nomination would guarantee the election of Hillary.
Most of the candidates in the single digits have no chance, and thus are not worthy of a Democratic vote, such as Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, or Ted Cruz, for they are just too extreme in their views. We must not let our fantasies of a Hillary Clinton landslide over such opponents distract us from doing what is practical. Other single-digit candidates might do better in the general than they are presently doing in the polls, and thus need watching. Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christie are too dangerous to vote for. Chris Christie is tempting, however. We all remember how Rick Lazio’s abrasive manner during a debate with Hillary may have lost him the election. And that would be nothing compared to what Christie might do or say during a debate after Hillary jabs him a few times. I’ll have to think about that possibility.
I think my favorite is Mike Huckabee. He is in the double digits, which gives him a chance to win the nomination, but I believe his conservative views will fail him in the general. Though he is often careful with his remarks, yet he occasionally blunders into saying what he really thinks. With a little prodding, we can probably get him to come out a little too strong in his opposition to the theory of evolution. In 2016, I do not think America will elect someone who believes in biblical creation. Republicans might be foolish enough to nominate such a person, however. And that’s where we come in.
Of course, much will change in the year to come, and so our assessment as to the “best” person to vote for in the Republican primaries may change, depending on developments. For the present, I have provided a poll to see who might best fit the anti-Buckley rule.