Who’s Running in 2016?

For some time, friends have been asking me who I think will be the presidential nominees in the 2016 election. Until now, I haven’t tried to guess. This weekend, The Sunday Times published an article on the likelihood of a run by Jeb Bush or, as he was termed, Bush Mark III. He probably looks good to a lot of voters. And he realises the importance of the Latino vote, something that Mitt Romney missed.

America is not unused to dynastic rule. The first seven presidents were Founding Fathers, members of America’s elite. Indeed, they included a father and son, John Adams and John Quincy Adams. Members of the Gore family have occupied both Congress and Blair House. In recent times, the Clintons and the Bushes have been the subject of more newsprint than possibly all others on the planet except the British royal family. 

The thought of another Bush in the White House will provoke all kinds of reaction. The Bush matriarch, Barbara, commented that “America has had enough Bushes.” Other family members have reacted similarly. But Jeb does not have too much political baggage these days. He last ran for office in 2002. If he ran, of course his role in the 2000 election would be scrutinised. He tried to hand Florida’s Electoral College votes to his brother, using highly questionable tactics, including the alleged exclusion of eligible voters. Just politics, family style, but it makes his recent favourable comments about immigration seem a contradiction of the past.

To be frank, I know little about Jeb Bush these days. He has spent more than a decade out of the public eye. His mother might not think it right for him to occupy the White House but she has also said that Jeb was “the most qualified person in the country.” At the moment there are more than a dozen Republicans positioning themselves for a run. Chris Christie looked like a strong candidate for a while until Bridgegate hurt his prospects, probably for good.

The Democrats look different and settled. Hillary Clinton is a certainty for the nomination, if you believe most of the media. I think it’s far too soon to judge. She might have a lot of financial backing but it is almost two years before the presidential primaries conclude and that’s a long time to be a front runner. I see one thing in her favour. She has experience as a US senator. What is needed in the White House is a person who knows how to pull Congressional strings. For this, a President needs to have spent time in Congress. However, she has little experience in domestic government policy. Her role as First Lady really doesn’t signify. However, as Secretary of State, she has been front and centre on foreign policy, which is a big plus.

Arguably, the president who had the greatest success in his relations with Congress was LBJ. He had spent many years in both the House and Senate before becoming Vice President, he knew where the bodies were buried and he was a superb political operator. Just look at the legislative programme that was stalled during JFK’s presidency and compare it with LBJ’s successes from 1964-1967 as Chief Executive. There is no way that Kennedy would have had the Civil Rights Act passed, let alone the Voting Rights Act.

I have no strong feeling as to who the 2016 presidential nominees will be but if I was a person of influence in either party, I would be looking to the Senate for my candidate. Here’s my reasoning. In this year’s mid-terms, the Democrats will get a pasting unless President Obama has a series of successes. Maybe he will find a way to make things better in Ukraine and Syria. Perhaps the perception of the economy will pick up. Unlikely scenarios, I know, but the prospects of the Democrats regaining a majority in the House are very poor. Maybe they will keep hold of their Senate majority but it won’t make any difference if the House stays Republican. The stalemate in passing legislation will continue.

In 2016, I have no idea which party will control Congress. Let us assume that it remains divided with the parties having a majority in only one chamber. A president with experience only as a state governor is bound to flounder for a while as he or she comes to grips with Congress and Washington’s toxic political ways. If a two-term Senator or four-term Congressperson is voted in, at least he or she will have had national experience and a knowledge of how to manipulate former legislative colleagues.

Neither Mrs Clinton nor Mr Bush has the experience and know-how to bend Congress to their will. In fact, no president has been able to do this since LBJ and, arguably, Richard Nixon, who had spent eight years in both Houses of Congress.

So this is why I am keeping an open mind on presidential nominee choices until I see who comes out of the Congressional pack and puts his or her hat in the ring.