In 2008, Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination saying many of the same things that Dennis Kucinch said in 2004. Kucinich was more or less laughed for his platform, which in 2004 was far too progressive (or, as Americans like to call it, Socialist) for the country. Just for years later, the very same ideas took Obama to the White House. So, why did Obama gain traction where Kucinich couldn't and Bernie Sanders won't?
One: Charisma and Charm
Obama is a handsome, clever, articulate, Harvard-educated black man with an oratorical style that moved the world to tears every time he gave a speech. His content was no different than Kucinich's, but his style was leaps and bounds beyond Kucinich's skill set. Bernie Sanders, while as passionate as Kucinich about his message, is about one step ahead of Dick Cheney on the charisma and charm scale. He comes across as very serious and angry, which is great for progressives in the primaries, but will not sway swing voters or moderate conservatives in the general election, nor will it get him the absolutely necessary free air time to make up for his righteous, though flailing fund-raising efforts. Let's be honest, Hillary's no Beyonce when it comes to charm and charisma, but if it's between the first woman President with no charisma and a cranky old white man with no charisma, who's going to win that fight?Two: Money
This is that ugly part of the game that everyone, but progressives especially, believe shouldn't exist. I certainly agree it shouldn't exist the way it currently exists in a post-Citizen's United (the Supreme Court decision deeming corporations are people and can contribute to campaigns as though they are individual donors) world, but until this decision is overturned and real campaign finance reform occurs, money is perhaps the most important factor to winning a Presidential election in America. While Barack Obama did an amazing job of energizing young people and small donors to contribute, he became a real contender because he courted big donors as well. He played the money game and while Hillary Clinton won the money game in 2008, Obama hung in closely enough to remain a competitor in the media battle. Where he won the media battle was again with his moving speeches and charming personality, which brought reporters swooning every time he opened his mouth, thus giving him endless TV time for free. Bernie is not this magnetic, thus, he better find a way to get some big donors in his corner, or he's going to get crushed when the media battle heats up closer to Super Tuesday.Three: Timing and Message
Obama was running at the end of one of the most failed presidencies of all time. The economy was in a tailspin, we were fighting two costly and senseless (if not illegal) wars with no exit strategies, we were torturing people with no evidence as to it making us safer, we felt our personal freedoms had been encroached upon with the Orwellian-esk Patriot Act, environmental regulations had been lifted everywhere and were having real effects on both industry and the environment, the financial sector had been deregulated to the point of...well, watch "The Wolf of Wall Street" if you want to see what a party they were having at the middle class' expense, and our infrastructure and social systems of care were being left to crumble. So, people were ready for Obama's message and he did a phenomenal job of delivering his message in a inspiring way. He could have easily drawn upon the public's frustrations and fears and presented his ideas in a serious, angry way. Instead he went with a lighter, sports' fan, Little Engine that Could message: "Yes we can!" Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have no "Yes we can!" They have "This shit sucks; let's eat the rich!" They are not running for President on the heals of a staggering failure of a president. They should be highlighting the progress Obama has made and re-energizing people to take his policies to the next level in the coming eight years. The public is very easily influenced. Obama's less-than-impressive favorability ratings could skyrocket tomorrow if Clinton and Sanders started reminding people how a Democratic president halted The Great Recession in mid-free fall by bailing out the car industry and passing a ginormous stimulus package, how he got tens of millions of people health care who have never had it, how he ended two wars that were costing hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives and doing nothing to make us safer, how he ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell, how he gave the DREAMers executive order to allow young immigrants here illegally some safety to come out of the shadows, how he gave an executive order to double gas mileage on all vehicles by 2025, how he gave the order not to crack down on the legalizing of marijuana in 5 states that are profiting hugely from it's tax revenue... I could go on all day, and they should too. Americans have a very short memory span and love to focus on the negative. They need constant reminders of what party is looking out for them. Bernie's plans are inspiring. His narrative is not.Four: Polling
Polls this early in the game are not great predictors of who will win the primary, but trends from now until the end of the year will be. As of now, Hillary is polling, on average, 24% higher nationwide than Bernie Sanders (some polls have her as far as 35% higher). To put that in perspective, Sanders is only leading Joe Biden by 9% and Biden isn't even in the race (yet). In fact, Sanders is so far down that pollsters aren't even running head-to-head polls on how he would match-up against Republican candidates. By contrast, Clinton is ahead in match-ups with every Republican candidate in the race. Of course, this could all change if something damaging, or illegal, comes out of the Clinton email "scandal," or if Biden gets in the race (which seems likely at this point). A Bernie optimist might say, "Hillary's lead over Obama was very similar at this point in the 2008 primaries and Obama won." A pessimist might say, "Yeah, but the Obama/ Hillary match-up came down to superdelegate voting to break a virtual dead-heat by the country as a whole, and Bernie is no Obama." This pessimist may go on to say that Bernie is the only alternative to Clinton right now and if Biden gets in, that could change very quickly. There's also the fact that Clinton has a 75-80% favorability rating among Democrats. So, it's really only the far left who don't feel she represents true progressive values, which Sanders champions, or that she has too much baggage and too many ties to Wall Street.All of this being said, circumstances do change. None of the three most likely candidates are spring-chickens. Health could become an issue and shift things suddenly. Also, they have all been in politics a very long time and have lots of votes and deals and public records to sift through. Scandals are still possible. But, all things considered, I think Bernie is a long-shot candidate. I, personally, would love to see Bernie win. I agree with everything he's saying. However, if he gets close enough to Hillary and/ or Biden to start getting head-to-head polls run against Republicans and Hillary is up 10% over the field and Sanders is polling even or down 5% to Bush or Rubio, is anyone going to go with Sanders on principle? I doubt it. I would argue that it is much more likely that Hillary adopts some of Bernie's policy positions to get his constituency on-board and/ or considers him for VP. I also would not count-out talk of a Biden/ Warren ticket, which honestly sounds like a powerhouse to me. Between the two of them they cover the gambit of necessary skills, knowledge, and experience in the areas Americans care about most in a President.
Only time will tell...
No comments:
Post a Comment