[blind-democracy] The Big Q for the Dem Debates: Who's the Most Effective Candidate to Take on the Increasingly Insane GOP?

  • From: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:50:49 -0400


Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > The Big Q for the Dem Debates: Who's the Most Effective Candidate to
Take on the Increasingly Insane GOP?
________________________________________
The Big Q for the Dem Debates: Who's the Most Effective Candidate to Take on
the Increasingly Insane GOP?
By Robert Kuttner [1] / Huffington Post [2]
October 12, 2015
Tuesday's Democratic debate is a very big deal, especially for front-runner
Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders will probably exceed expectations because
many viewers will be seeing him for the first time, certainly for the first
time against Clinton. The other three candidates will likely find themselves
far back -- this is narrowing to a two person contest.
Clinton needs to get out of a self-infecting cycle of bad publicity, in
which everything she does is dismissed as calculating and contrived, even
when it represents creative movement on issues. Sanders merely needs to take
care to come across as fighting for the forgotten American on the issues, as
he nearly always does, but not too radical in his personal style.
In the past few weeks, Clinton has made several dramatic moves in Sanders'
direction. She has broken with the Administration on the Trans Pacific
Partnership trade deal, on the Keystone Pipeline and on the so-called
Cadillac Tax on high quality health plans (she is for repeal; the White
House is not). She is out-flanking Sanders to the left on gun control, and
she is at least as comfortable talking about race.
These positions are attractive to the Sanders constituency. One can expect
that Clinton is saving one or two more headline-grabbing surprises for the
debate -- quite possibly something on workers' wages. The question is
whether viewers and pundits will credit her for this movement, or just
discount it as mere posturing.
There are also some popular issues where Clinton simply can't get to
Sanders' left, such as his proposal to break up the big banks. That's simple
and clear. Clinton, who gets a lot of Wall Street support, is for tighter
regulation, a position that quickly degenerates into wonky detail.
Clinton, in short, is necessarily playing a much more complex game than
Sanders. Much of her posture is directed at a potential candidate who will
not be on stage -- Joe Biden. A great deal of her positioning is aimed not
just at Sanders, but at dissuading Biden from getting into the race.
Unlike Clinton, Biden as sitting vice president cannot break with Obama on
the TPP, the pipeline, or the health insurance tax. By moving in Sanders'
direction on all these issues, she not only appeals to his constituency, but
jams Biden.
In the inside game, Clinton needs to persuade the activists associated with
the Democratic Party, especially the labor movement, that she can be as much
their champion as Sanders can. She needs to reassure her own core supporters
(who might be tempted to defect to Biden) that her candidacy is not fatally
damaged by recent missteps.
In the outside game, Clinton needs to persuade ordinary voters that she is a
better bet to beat any Republican than Sanders or any other Democrat. And in
the horse-race optics, she needs to persuade the media that she beat
expectations. In short, she has a much tougher job than Sanders, who can
just be himself.
One key question is just how tactical ordinary Democratic viewers will be in
their perceptions of the debate. Will they go with their gut, or base their
support on who they think will be the strongest candidate against any
Republican?
Logically, that should be Clinton. As she runs more as a pocketbook
progressive, in principle she should be able to take some of Sanders' appeal
without being tarnished by his seeming radicalism. She ought to be the
stronger nominee in the general election.
However, this is far from an ordinary year. In both parties, the disgust
with a political system that seems paralyzed and with an economy of, by, and
for the one percent, leaves radicalism far more attractive the usual.
This is also a very unusual year in another respect. The Republicans now
hold a larger majority in the House of Representatives than at any time
since the 1920s. Because of gerrymandering and the concentration of
Democratic support in heavily blue districts, the conventional view is that
only about 15 House seats will be in play in 2016. It will take a complete
implosion of the Republican Party and a landslide for the Democrats for them
to pick up the 30 seats they need to regain control of the House.
However, the Republicans might be setting themselves up for just such an
implosion. The GOP presidential field is a circus. At the rate things are
going, Donald Trump could well be the nominee, because all the primaries
after March 15 award their delegates on a winner-take-all basis. With the
rest of the field splintered, Trump only needs to hold his roughly 25
percent share and he wins most delegates.
With Trump having alienated women, immigrants, minorities, and voters who
actually follow issues, it's hard to imagine the Democrat not winning in a
landslide.
(On the other hand, one has to recall a famous incident attributed to Adlai
Stevenson in the 1952 campaign, in which a gushing supporter told him,
"Governor, you will have the support of every thinking person." To which he
replied, "Madame, that's not enough, we need a majority.")
If the Republican presidential contest were not a sufficient zoo, the
anarchy in the House of Representatives trumps even Trump. But with the
House elected district- by-district, the question is whether the leaderless
House and the ability of some 40 fringe Tea-Party Republicans to hold the
whole institution hostage will tarnish the Republican brand in a way that
helps Democrats.
That, it seems to me, is partly a question of the ability of the Democratic
standard-bearer to lead and to define the stakes. So Tuesday's debate, first
and foremost, is not just a contest over positioning on the issues, but an
audition to determine who would be the most effective candidate against an
increasingly insane Republican Party.
Robert Kuttner is the former co-editor of the American Prospect and a senior
fellow at Demos. His latest book is "Obama's Challenge: America's Economic
Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency."
Share on Facebook Share
Share on Twitter Tweet
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [3]
[4]
________________________________________
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/big-q-dem-debates-whos-most-effective-
candidate-take-increasingly-insane-gop
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/robert-kuttner
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
[3] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on The Big Q for the Dem
Debates: Who&#039;s the Most Effective Candidate to Take on the Increasingly
Insane GOP?
[4] http://www.alternet.org/
[5] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > The Big Q for the Dem Debates: Who's the Most Effective Candidate to
Take on the Increasingly Insane GOP?

The Big Q for the Dem Debates: Who's the Most Effective Candidate to Take on
the Increasingly Insane GOP?
By Robert Kuttner [1] / Huffington Post [2]
October 12, 2015
Tuesday's Democratic debate is a very big deal, especially for front-runner
Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders will probably exceed expectations because
many viewers will be seeing him for the first time, certainly for the first
time against Clinton. The other three candidates will likely find themselves
far back -- this is narrowing to a two person contest.
Clinton needs to get out of a self-infecting cycle of bad publicity, in
which everything she does is dismissed as calculating and contrived, even
when it represents creative movement on issues. Sanders merely needs to take
care to come across as fighting for the forgotten American on the issues, as
he nearly always does, but not too radical in his personal style.
In the past few weeks, Clinton has made several dramatic moves in Sanders'
direction. She has broken with the Administration on the Trans Pacific
Partnership trade deal, on the Keystone Pipeline and on the so-called
Cadillac Tax on high quality health plans (she is for repeal; the White
House is not). She is out-flanking Sanders to the left on gun control, and
she is at least as comfortable talking about race.
These positions are attractive to the Sanders constituency. One can expect
that Clinton is saving one or two more headline-grabbing surprises for the
debate -- quite possibly something on workers' wages. The question is
whether viewers and pundits will credit her for this movement, or just
discount it as mere posturing.
There are also some popular issues where Clinton simply can't get to
Sanders' left, such as his proposal to break up the big banks. That's simple
and clear. Clinton, who gets a lot of Wall Street support, is for tighter
regulation, a position that quickly degenerates into wonky detail.
Clinton, in short, is necessarily playing a much more complex game than
Sanders. Much of her posture is directed at a potential candidate who will
not be on stage -- Joe Biden. A great deal of her positioning is aimed not
just at Sanders, but at dissuading Biden from getting into the race.
Unlike Clinton, Biden as sitting vice president cannot break with Obama on
the TPP, the pipeline, or the health insurance tax. By moving in Sanders'
direction on all these issues, she not only appeals to his constituency, but
jams Biden.
In the inside game, Clinton needs to persuade the activists associated with
the Democratic Party, especially the labor movement, that she can be as much
their champion as Sanders can. She needs to reassure her own core supporters
(who might be tempted to defect to Biden) that her candidacy is not fatally
damaged by recent missteps.
In the outside game, Clinton needs to persuade ordinary voters that she is a
better bet to beat any Republican than Sanders or any other Democrat. And in
the horse-race optics, she needs to persuade the media that she beat
expectations. In short, she has a much tougher job than Sanders, who can
just be himself.
One key question is just how tactical ordinary Democratic viewers will be in
their perceptions of the debate. Will they go with their gut, or base their
support on who they think will be the strongest candidate against any
Republican?
Logically, that should be Clinton. As she runs more as a pocketbook
progressive, in principle she should be able to take some of Sanders' appeal
without being tarnished by his seeming radicalism. She ought to be the
stronger nominee in the general election.
However, this is far from an ordinary year. In both parties, the disgust
with a political system that seems paralyzed and with an economy of, by, and
for the one percent, leaves radicalism far more attractive the usual.
This is also a very unusual year in another respect. The Republicans now
hold a larger majority in the House of Representatives than at any time
since the 1920s. Because of gerrymandering and the concentration of
Democratic support in heavily blue districts, the conventional view is that
only about 15 House seats will be in play in 2016. It will take a complete
implosion of the Republican Party and a landslide for the Democrats for them
to pick up the 30 seats they need to regain control of the House.
However, the Republicans might be setting themselves up for just such an
implosion. The GOP presidential field is a circus. At the rate things are
going, Donald Trump could well be the nominee, because all the primaries
after March 15 award their delegates on a winner-take-all basis. With the
rest of the field splintered, Trump only needs to hold his roughly 25
percent share and he wins most delegates.
With Trump having alienated women, immigrants, minorities, and voters who
actually follow issues, it's hard to imagine the Democrat not winning in a
landslide.
(On the other hand, one has to recall a famous incident attributed to Adlai
Stevenson in the 1952 campaign, in which a gushing supporter told him,
"Governor, you will have the support of every thinking person." To which he
replied, "Madame, that's not enough, we need a majority.")
If the Republican presidential contest were not a sufficient zoo, the
anarchy in the House of Representatives trumps even Trump. But with the
House elected district- by-district, the question is whether the leaderless
House and the ability of some 40 fringe Tea-Party Republicans to hold the
whole institution hostage will tarnish the Republican brand in a way that
helps Democrats.
That, it seems to me, is partly a question of the ability of the Democratic
standard-bearer to lead and to define the stakes. So Tuesday's debate, first
and foremost, is not just a contest over positioning on the issues, but an
audition to determine who would be the most effective candidate against an
increasingly insane Republican Party.
Robert Kuttner is the former co-editor of the American Prospect and a senior
fellow at Demos. His latest book is "Obama's Challenge: America's Economic
Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency."
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [3]
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.[4]

Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/big-q-dem-debates-whos-most-effective-
candidate-take-increasingly-insane-gop
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/robert-kuttner
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
[3] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on The Big Q for the Dem
Debates: Who&#039;s the Most Effective Candidate to Take on the Increasingly
Insane GOP?
[4] http://www.alternet.org/
[5] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B


Other related posts:

  • » [blind-democracy] The Big Q for the Dem Debates: Who's the Most Effective Candidate to Take on the Increasingly Insane GOP? - Miriam Vieni