What if Hillary and all of her Democratic Primary challengers made a deal right now: Whoever wins the primaries will make the second-place finisher their Vice Presidential running mate.
Here is my motivation for this diary.
This is meant to address the foregone conclusion that HRC will win the Democratic primary.
Such a conclusion is invariably going to reduce the interest of other candidates in running to oppose her.
However, we also need a contested Democratic primary. If for no other reason, to avoid the constant talk of a coronation.
But considering the shitshow the GOP primaries are going to be, the Democratic primary will be one of the best opportunities to showcase the party's strengths going into the General election. While the Repubs will be hard at work pandering to their fundamentalist base, Democrats can use the primaries to set a Liberal agenda. One that lines up better with the general populace, while the GOP fights over illegals and Irans. But this will only work if there are strong Democratic challengers. HRC will have to run a strong campaign herself, and along the way, the American people will get a strong dose of all the great policies the Democratic Party has to offer. By the time the general elections roll around, not only will the GOP candidate be fighting hard just to wring out the stench of the Conservative base, but they will then have to contend with a strong fleshed-out Liberal agenda already out on the playing field mowing people over.
But again, we have to consider the fact that most of the evidence indicates that the Democratic nomination is Hillary's to lose yet again. As I have seen many people point out, the perception that Hillary will be the eventual candidate greatly depresses the interest in challengers. Such challengers have a hard time courting big-name donors, and some otherwise good challengers would rather avoid a high-profile losing campaign with so much of the deck already stacked against them. So in addition, they need some further incentive to remain in the race, if they keep facing stiff competition losing to HRC again and again. So the risk is that, not only do we fail to get strong Democratic challengers for a strong primary, but such challengers will also quickly flame out.
This would also be a missed opportunity, even if HRC is expected to be the eventual winner, to use the primaries to hone her message, her campaign machine, and prepare for the rigors of the general election campaigning, if a strong challenger fails to materialize.
However, I also do not like the prospects of a primary that only serves to drag Hillary and all the Democratic challengers down. Such scenarios can be disastrous, as this example illustrates. Such scenarios are also hard to avoid, one only need to look to the other side of the aisle to see the many problems such scenarios engender. Ideally, not only does a strong challenger or two to Hillary materialize, but the challenge remains congenial enough that the two do not drag each other down into the muck, but rather elevate each other.
Finally, as popular as HRC is, there are many detractors, particularly on the left, who are adamantly opposed to HRC being the candidate. They would like to see someone challenge HRC so badly that they continue to tout people like Elizabeth Warren, who has repeatedly denied interest in even running; that is how intent they are at derailing the HRC candidacy.
The problem I have with this armchair quarterbacking is that such machinations often do not come with much of an endgame. So we manage to get a more Progressive candidate to defeat Hillary and become the Democratic nominee; then what?
Would such a candidate then be more electable in the General than Hillary, and more importantly, the Republican candidate? Let's not forget the importance of name recognition; such a candidate would likely have to devote more energy than Hillary would just getting people to know who they even are. Also, let's not forget the influence of the large mega donors who blew up the last election. In such a scenario, who are these mega donors going to throw their money and clout behind, the Republican candidate, or the Democrat who defeated HRC, arguably one of their favorites in the party, possibly from the left?
Of course, one could point at Barack Obama to prove that it can be done. But let's remember that Obama did not run as "I'm not Hillary;" in a lot of ways, his campaign wasn't all that different than HRC's. It helped that he ran a highly efficient and effective campaign, and brought a lot of strong rhetoric to the table, while Hillary's campaign clearly made a lot of miscalculations along the way. This is not to say that any of the potential challengers next year cannot end up producing the same amazing results, however, few of the serious contenders seem to have as much upside. I just don't want to be placed into a position with some very serious buyers remorse, because people have hastily written HRC off.
It is for these reasons that I think we should entertain some alternative scenarios. This is the one I propose.
Whoever wins the primaries will make the second-place finisher their Vice Presidential running mate.
I am proposing this idea to address many of the problems mentioned above.
By ensuring that the second-place finisher gets tapped as the Vice President, it ensures that the second-highest office is still up for grabs, even if HRC eventually gets the top pick.
The hope is that the Vice Presidential position is still desirable enough that it is worth continuing in the Democratic primary, even if they eventually lose to Hillary. After all, 14 Vice Presidents have gone on to become the President eventually.
Having a second-place prize of Vice President makes it more likely that, not only do stronger candidates enter the race to challenge Hillary, but that they continue to campaign even after her win is assured. The contested primary, then, continues to be an effective platform to push Liberal proposals as well as tout the achievements of the top tier Democratic candidates.
By the time the General election rolls around, then, the Republican candidate will not have to contend with just one Democratic candidate who has been through a trial-by-fire primary, but two. Two candidates who have joined forces ready to take on whatever the Republican Party throws their way.
Furthermore, it adds to the perception that, rather than being a coronation, the Democratic primary remains a real contest. So long as Hillary agrees to such a condition, it shows that she still considers it a possibility that she may end up in that second place finish, in other words, that she is playing on the up and up. Not taking it for granted. Or, that she is confident enough in her victory that she sees no real risk to such a deal.
Because even in the unlikely scenario that someone else comes out on top, the deal means that even Hillary still comes out with a high office position. And considering how the Senate itself may also come down to the wire, whoever is VP may end up wielding enormous power regardless.
Additionally, by ensuring that Hillary stays on as the running mate, it leaves open the possibility that all the connections and backing Hillary gained in the race, will not immediately jump ship. By creating the perception of a cooperative leadership, for a primary challenger who potentially beat Hillary by leaning to the left, it will make it more likely that the challenger maintains a lot of HRC's support that might otherwise go back across the aisle.
Visualizing such a challenger who is strong enough to overcome Hillary in the Democratic primaries, it requires a good campaign anyways; however, having Hillary as a close supporter afterwards, one could only imagine such a challenger would be that much harder to beat.
Of course, the reality is probably closer to being that Hillary comes out on top. However, this deal means that whoever finished second will not only end up with a high-profile office, but the less obvious byproduct of such a deal is that both would become extremely well acquainted with what each others' supporters want, what messages and ideas better resonated with them; they then have another benchmark on which to better craft their message to a wider audience.
On the other hand, both know that, because of this deal, they will likely have to deal with each other beyond the Primaries. Such a deal would then hopefully increase the odds that the Primary remains civil and elevating, rather than slide into mudslinging.
These are what I think about when reasoning for such a proposal.
I'm not going to put myself out and suggest this is a perfect solution. I'm sure many people here are shrewd enough to find plenty of faults with my idea and my assertions.
But, to these critics, I will say the same thing as I would to HRC's critics:
The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.
If anybody out there continues to oppose a Hillary candidacy because she is not a perfect Democratic candidate, they are not serving anyone's interests but the other side of the aisle's. A Hillary who is a perfect Democratic candidate is just as unlikely as any challenger to her being the perfect Democratic candidate. But rather than see this as a negative, this should be seen as an opportunity to improve not only Hillary's campaign, but also the Party's chances in November, no matter who the candidate is.
Perhaps such an idea wouldn't make much difference in November. One could point to polls, point to supposed Democratic advantages, and largely dismiss the notion that Democrats needs such an idea at all to win the General elections. However, I am never going to be the type of person to think that anything is ever assured. If we are not looking at ways to improve the odds of success, but only looking at ways to avoid an undesired outcome, we are not doing ourselves any favors.
But still, I'm sure there are still people here who have some ideas of their own on what should be done to address these issues.
To them I say: what do you propose?