2016: The White House Stage is Set for a Prize Fight

Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush

When I was seven years old, I was with my father when the death of King George VI was announced on the car radio. I don’t recall anything from the announcement except being staggered when a herald stated, “the King is dead. Long live the Queen.” I asked my father what this meant. He explained that there could not be a monarchical time gap, so as soon as one monarch died, the reign of the next commenced. I recall thinking this to be harsh on the one who died but then I was only seven.

Moving forward to 1997, I can still see in my mind John Major on the steps of the Conservative Party offices in Smith Square, coping with the results of the general election when Labour’s huge landslide victory under Tony Blair destroyed the Conservatives and swept Major from power. You could tell Major was shocked by the extent of the defeat. He said to his supporters: “sometimes, politics is a rough old trade.”

Both these events came to mind last week when, after the mid-terms, the Republican Party swept the Democrats away in the US Senate, increased their majority in the US House of Representatives, took over several governors’ mansions and did well in State elections. One would have expected that the main thrust of the American newspapers (those I read) and also the British press would target the effect of the results for American voters, as well as the reaction of the Obama administration. To be fair, these points were covered. However, the major element of the reporting and editorials looked at succession. To be precise, who would occupy the White House in 2016? “The President is dead politically, long live the President-elect.”

Americans could look at the British electoral process with jealousy. The Prime Minister calls for dissolution of Parliament, there is a 28 days national campaign and, hey-presto, either the existing administration is returned to government or a new administration takes over. Our elections are invariably on a Thursday. By no later than the following Sunday, the defeated Prime Minister, his or her family and belongings are removed from Downing Street and the new occupant takes up residence.

The American electoral experience is very different. Nowadays, the presidential election process starts at least two years before polling day. Hillary Clinton has already been the Democrat front-runner for more than a year. Will any other Democrat challenge her? Hopefully, yes, because there should be a contest but any challenger will need to tap into sources of finance separate from Hillary supporters. Let’s face it. A presidential election is more about money than policy. The rise of PACS and SUPERPACS ensure that hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in campaigning.

The newspapers have proposed Elizabeth Warren as a potential Democratic opponent to Mrs Clinton. Warren is an academic, a US Senator and, as I understand it, a liberal, seemingly left of Hillary. However, Mrs Clinton’s positions are muted, as they should be. Why open your policy-thinking to scrutiny two years out? It is likely that Mrs Clinton will seek the centre ground. It’s safe and wins elections.  Will Ms Warren be a serious contender? It depends far more on her fund-raising powers than anything else.

Whilst the Democratic contenders list for 2016 is short, this does not mean that someone else will not emerge. Meanwhile, the Republicans have no end of candidates who may well put their hats into the ring. Right now, the invisible primaries are taking place. Some twenty Republican “leaders” are forming their Exploratory Committees who are looking for seed money. Soon, the roads of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, states with miniscule Electoral College votes but with high press attention because of early primaries and caucuses, will suffer traffic jams as contestants pour into their cities and towns.

The prospect of another Bush v Clinton election looms. Jeb Bush could be a strong contestant. Not only was he Governor of Florida but he appeals to Hispanics, whose influence in the next election should not be minimized. Bush could face challenges from Scott Walker (Wisconsin), Chris Christie (New Jersey) of Bridge-gate infamy, Rand Paul (Kentucky) who would appeal to young voters, Ted Cruz (Texas) and John Kasich (Ohio.) In a year’s time, we might watch early television debates with up to twenty Republicans seeking to make their mark with the voters and, as important, in straw polls which are meat and drink for the media, although of little real importance.

My American friends complain about the length of the process. I agree. They also complain about the expense but it must be said that the process creates mini-economies in minor states who welcome the money being spent there. The other side of the coin is that the American presidential election experience is used by a few ultra-rich people gifting phenomenal funds at their disposal to “buy” votes and candidates. For example, in last week’s mid-terms, Americans For Prosperity, funded by Charles and David Koch, spent $22 million supporting Republican candidates for the US Senate. Elections are no longer an even playing field. I can only imagine what chief executives like Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman would have said about these individuals spending such large amounts.

In the UK, there are very strictly enforced laws on election spending. Rich people cannot seek an electoral advantage through their money. I believe the Supreme Court has much to answer for by allowing the American electoral system to be corrupted by money. However the people who can stop the rich are the very same benefitting directly from the rich. There are times I’m pleased to be British!