There are phenomena that seem to evolve over time. For example, we are a much more divided country politically than we were when I first started voting three score years ago. And this divisiveness has made us, in general, an angrier and less flexible electorate. Conventional wisdom now asserts that only about 10-15% of voters can actually swing the outcome of an election. The mindsets of the rest have implacably hardened.
We have also succumbed to the concept of identity politics, with the expectation that certain groups of Americans will predictably vote one way or another. In addition, we more vehemently exploit issue politics, many of them socially-oriented, and all of them volatile, further alienating voters from one another.
Yet if voting outcomes have become more predictable, why is so much effort and dough expended in campaigns? The answer may be summed up in a single, crucial word: turnout. Opinion matters only if it's dropped in the ballot box. As a result, nobody can be taken for granted in an election year. One of the reasons why candidates covet a bunch of small donations as much as the open checkbook of a big donor is that those who have skin in the game, however thin, are more likely to put their vote where their money is. Enthusiasm is the impetus in every human journey, including the one to the polls.
Universal political truths notwithstanding, this campaign season has signaled some sea changes worth noting. For example, while the Republican bench is overcrowded with presidential hopefuls, Democrats have just about determined the least competitive open primary in modern history. Three of the liberal politicians running are no longer in public office. One has since dropped out of the race. Vice President Biden never dropped in. As a result — and barring some catastrophe — Hillary Clinton is already, ipso facto, the Democratic nominee — even before the first primary ballot has been cast.
If scheduled debates continue between Hillary and Bernie, all they can accomplish is a further delay of the inevitable for Sanders' supporters. That signals another significant wrinkle in this year's campaign. Many young Americans are openly drifting toward socialism. There may be a variety of reasons for this, but the fact remains that it confounds Hillary's platform going forward. Her task will be to present herself far left enough to secure their votes yet still attract the support of more centrist Democrats.
While Hillary can now feel free to worry about how to win the actual election, a crucial piece of the puzzle: 'Who will be the Republican standard-bearer?' will likely elude her for a while. And it may detract from her press coverage. Still, Republicans may find that having too many contenders can be as challenging as having too few. Only two GOP wannabes have dropped out of the race thus far. Others have war chests that should see them through for a while, although Jeb Bush has cut his expenses and staff by 40%.
A sad fact of present-day political life is the difficulty people of different ideologies have in even attempting a courteous personal discussion of the issues, much less a national dialogue. But in this campaign cycle, they have something in common: an eagerness to go anti-establishment and break with tradition. For disgruntled liberals who feel left behind by an anemic economy, Bernie's zeal for changing the class structure in America has resonated, even though he cannot be the nominee. And what will Poor Robin do then?
On the other end of the political spectrum, there is a likewise a posture of angst and anger. Studies clearly show that a clear majority of all Americans do not like the direction in which our country is headed. But their solutions are at odds. The appeal for a Bernie Sanders is that he would change America to be more like something it's never been, e.g. Denmark or Sweden. By contrast, the appeal of a Dr. Ben Carson or Donald Trump is that they would change America to be more like it used to be without equal in the world.
Despite the broad suspicion of both sides toward the status quo, Americans are, by nature, an optimistic people. And they find politics more palatable when it is entertaining. Enthralled by idols in other phases of life — show business, sports, media — we seem now to crave them in politics. Barack Obama was the embodiment of charisma and change. In this presidential run, the three top contenders are larger-than-life figures, each with celebrity status. Hillary has long been a contentious figure with a burning ambition to be the first female president. The Donald is a reality-show impresario who clearly fascinates as much as he frightens. Even my 7-year old grandson knows who Donald Trump is. Ben Carson has an incredibly compelling personal back story and is respected worldwide as a cutting edge (I had to say that!) neurosurgeon. Incidentally, he is the only one of these three viable contenders whose negatives, according to public opinion, do not exceed their positives.
Having said that, I have no intention of prognosticating how Election 2016 will play out. I will venture to say that I do not think either the Trump or Carson candidacies will fold any time soon. And I doubt that Hillary Clinton will receive anything more than a punitive slap on the wrist for her unconsidered use of a private server.
As for whether the respective parties will fall in line behind their ultimate standard bearer, that remains to be seen, though it would certainly be in their interests to do so. Deep schisms remain in both parties. Wounds need healing. There is a need for compromise, even if that noun has been beaten down to a four-letter word.
The one indisputable fact is that there is a growing awareness of politics this time around. Perhaps Americans will emerge as a more educated electorate. More than a year remains, however, and as the pundits put it, anything can happen. In fact it seems to some of us as though it already has.
©2015 Doris O'Brien for SeniorWomen.com
Editor's Note: Sharon Epperson, a panelist at this next Republican Debate in Boulder, is a former colleague at Time Magazine and a senior CNBC financial correspondent. She is more than able to meet the challenge of the assemblage.
Pages: 1 · 2
