DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
Democrats have Dinosaurs, too.
quote:
Biden, Clinton, Cuomo are considered the leading candidates to seek the Democratic nomination for president in the coming open election. Are we talking about 2016 or 1988?
While it is the same Biden, it is a different Cuomo, and, technically, a different Clinton (though the age thing still applies).
quote:
A few days ago on "This Week" on ABC I referred to a meeting of CPAC as something that could take place in the Mesozoic era. The interesting thing is both parties in different ways seem trapped in the past.
For many, Republicans seem to be annunciating policies and programs and a vision that seems outdated and out of step with modern America. Their stands on many social issues (though there does seem to be some evolving going on related to gay marriage) and tax policies and view of government do not seem to fit society in the 21 st century. As I've said, a conservative message could be very successful; it just needs to be one that fits today's economic, social and political environment.
But Democrats shouldn't bask in the idea that they don't have a dinosaur problem too. Look at that list of names at the top of this column; it is a list from a time gone by. Where are the new names? Where is the bench that isn't named Clinton, Biden or Cuomo? I understand two of these folks are relatives of the names from the 1980s, but come on, isn't there a future for Democrats that isn't a dinosaur name from the past?
The GOP was criticized for rolling out McCain as an opponent to a vibrant young man in 2008. McCain's age and health (related to his age) were called into question (though it was his economic knowledge that really sunk him right as the shit was hitting the fan). Now what? Granted, Cuomo is the son of the guy that was running in '88, but is his naming matching that of the guy that ran 25 years ago a problem? Apparently, to Matthew Dowd, it is (at least for the Democrats).
quote:
And while Republicans have a message that could be described as drawn up in a time of dinosaurs, Democrats must solve a personnel problem to move successfully into the future. Right now the personality and persuasion of President Obama ties the Democrats together in a loose coalition of a diverse variety of demographic groups. He is the leader that looks much more like the 21 st century, but after President Obama leaves office in 2016, whom do they have that isn't a name drawn from 25 years ago?
Republicans actually have a new group of leaders emerging. Sure, a Bush seems to be circling the field, but the names that have gotten more buzz today among conservatives are Rubio, Christie and Walker. None of these names were on the political scene 10 years ago, let alone 25 years ago.
Walker was either in college or just graduated in '88. Rubio was still in HS. Christie was still almost a decade away from being eligible. Of the 3 Democrats mentioned, Cuomo is the only one younger than the oldest GOP name mentioned (Jeb Bush), but 5 years older than the oldest GOP person mentioned that are getting "more buzz today." I would consider Jeb Bush as a dinosaur more so than Cuomo, personally, but if the people mentioned in the article are the leading candidates, will the Democrats be susceptible to age-related smears, as McCain was?
But, what really blew me away, was this next part:quote:
Both parties are an imperfect fit for this next presidential election, as well as to appeal to the new generation of voters emerging in America, but for totally different reasons. One has a policy problem; the other has a personnel problem. But in many ways, the Republicans' situation is an easier fix.
You can't create a brand new candidate that is ready for prime time out of thin air. But a new candidate can create a new set of messages and policies if they are willing to lead and have the strength and capacity to put together a viable electoral coalition. In politics, you nearly always need a candidate first, and then messages usually flow from that person's leadership ability.
In 1992, it wasn't some think tanks or party regulars or the Democratic Leadership Council that created Bill Clinton. It was his emergence and ability as a politician that gave all of them credibility and brought them into the limelight. His message and persona fit the time exceedingly well. And this is what some new Republican is going to need to do if they are going to win.
The idea that you can't create a brand new candidate out of thin air is exactly what they did for the 2008 election. Obama had been an elected politician for only 11 years before he was inaugurated, and of those 11 years, only 3 were at a National level. The first 8 years, he spent as a State Senator. The clamor against Bush started in 2001 and continued into Obama's Presidency. The message was started not too long after Obama was elected for the first time.
It is a bit interesting, though, to see one of the knocks against the GOP is starting to move away from the GOP towards the Democrats. As dumb as it would be to make it a focus in a campaign, I have no doubts that the GOP will do it whenever they can, just as the Democrats did, and will do it whenever they get the opportunity.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
Democrats Have Dinosaurs, too - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread