Rarely are the candidates considered presidential frontrunners 3-5 years before Election Day the ones who receive the nomination (Howard Dean, anyone?). Even so, discussions about who may or may not run in the next election begin before the last votes are tallied from the previous cycle. These conversations typically consist of TMZ-style speculation about would-be candidates: who has taken a vacation to Iowa or Ohio recently; who is fundraising in Florida; which public officials are still “not ruling out” a run for the presidency.
Instead of playing the gossip page guessing-game, we should be asking a more consequential question: Who should run? What kind of matchup would strengthen our republic by giving American voters the best opportunity to learn and weigh the merits of opposing policy positions represented by the two political parties?
Ours is a fractured political environment. Both parties face an identity crisis, and the nominees for each party in 2016 will have an unprecedented impact on the future of each party as the standard-bearers for their respective points of view.
Democrats are coalesced around party identity, but lack substantive direction after the disastrous rollout of their signature agenda item left the party wounded and their base disillusioned. Stunted economic growth and a volatile global environment continue to plague their beleaguered professorial president, making for a challenging 2016 environment for the Left.
Republicans, meanwhile, are fragmented. Party leaders are working to reunite divergent factions of the party in opposition to the President’s policies, which they find only slightly more distasteful than the differences they have with one another. Despite this, they have, so far, managed to leverage recent Democratic failures into record-breaking GOP fundraising numbers. And nearly every pollster agrees Republicans are poised to retake the Senate and solidify their majority in the House.
So who should carry the banner for each party in 2016? Which candidates can cut through the noise, offer compelling arguments for their party’s ideas, and make this election a two-way conversation about opposing priorities rather than a substance-free standoff?
Republicans have the daunting task of uniting the warring factions that make up today’s multi-dimensional GOP, and the right candidate must be able to unite social, fiscal, and foreign policy conservatives behind a positive, pro-freedom message, while rallying the traditional base of the party. A herculean feat if ever there was one.
Several names are being tossed around in GOP establishment circles. Some, like Governor Chris Christie or Senator Marco Rubio, may have the political infrastructure and financial capital backing them to make a go at the presidency.
A lower-profile but highly competent executive, such as Governor Mike Pence of Indiana, may offer the GOP the best chance to unite behind a proven leader who can communicate their values, and rally together to elect a Republican president in 2016.
The son of Catholic Democrats, Governor Pence is not often named at the top of people’s 2016 bracket (though his name has recently been floated by some). But Pence offers Americans a return to the “Reagan conservative” values voters pine for, and – this is key – the ability to effectively articulate what Republicans are for in a positive and engaging way. While a relative political unknown, the governor may offer the best chance for Republicans to go toe-to-toe against a formidable Hillary Clinton campaign, by putting forward someone with solid Midwestern values, natural campaigning skills, and experience running a state.
Governor Pence offers a compelling record of effective executive leadership, and an ability to reach across the aisle to enact real-world solutions to pressing social, economic, and foreign policy challenges. As chair of the House Republican Conference and then as Governor, he has shown an ability to deftly blend traditional values and concern for families in need with a commonsense fiscal agenda that creates prosperity and boosts job creators, expertly navigating the waters of the GOP’s various camps – garnering support from fiscal watchdogs, social conservatives, defense hawks, and libertarians alike – while remaining intellectually consistent in his adherence to their shared values. While never showy, the former radio host is also a charismatic politician and persuasive speaker with substance behind his rhetoric – something voters will be hungry for after a disappointing eight years of unrealized campaign promises, failed progressive initiatives, and a scandal-ridden Obama Administration.
Yet for all his virtues, if Pence does top the GOP ticket, many will raise concerns over his white-male-ness, particularly given the probability of a Clinton candidacy. Despite a large swath of GOP legislators elected from minority communities to local, state and federal offices in the last decade – Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Tim Scott to name only a few – Democrats have been able to characterize Republicans as bigots and racists. This is a reality the party must work overtime to overcome. Meanwhile, the Democrats’ “war on women” talking point has been an effective – if completely unsubstantiated – messaging campaign that has wounded any number of GOP politicians who dare to publicly align themselves with over half of the country (and a majority of women) in believing that the lives of children should be protected in the womb. With women constituting half of the electorate and one of the most influential voting blocks in the United States, and with minorities quickly becoming the majority in many states, the GOP ticket must tangibly demonstrate the conservative commitment to freedom and justice for all.
In light of this, the best choice for the number two spot would be New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, one of the most accomplished politicians of our time. Governor Martinez is the kind of strong, independent, persuasive trailblazer with broad appeal this country needs to lead it forward. The people of New Mexico are familiar with her no-nonsense, principled-but-compassionate leadership style; like Governor Pence, she represents a return to the values that propelled the party to power in the 1980s and led to the election of George W. Bush by “soccer moms” in 2000.
Governor Martinez also has the added bonus of being electable to the presidency in her own right and able to play on a national stage, making her a highly qualified candidate to run after a two-term Pence Administration. This future electability and long-term planning is an aspect of the 2016 race that should be considered by political donors and voters alike. Together, these two governors would make up a formidable ticket that both exemplifies and articulates commonsense conservative values.
On the other side of the aisle, no one can ignore the constant drumbeat for Hillary Clinton to run, least of all Hillary Clinton. Former Secretary of State, Senator, and First Lady Clinton is undoubtedly qualified in her own right, but the Clinton Political Machine, unrivalled in modern times, has been hard at work for years to produce the ideal environment for her to run and win. The most recent example of this is the strategic timing of new revelations by “that woman, Ms. Lewinsky” appearing in print, well before the election heats up, skillfully diffusing a major vulnerability for Senator Clinton and the future First Man.
Following an Obama Presidency in which many of her 2008 campaign predictions about Obama’s inexperience and naiveté were realized, Secretary Clinton is now in an ideal position to leverage the President’s poor approval numbers to run a campaign that tells American voters, “Here’s your chance to redeem yourself.” And rightfully so; given the dangerous geopolitical side effects of President Obama’s haphazard foreign policy, a Hillary Clinton presidency would likely return America to a position of strength and secure our position as a leader on the world’s stage once again. A Clinton ticket would offer the chance to heal strained relationships with allies like Germany, Britain, and Israel, and make clear to Russia and North Korea that crossing red lines has real consequences.
But Americans are still struggling to find work here at home, and small businesses are struggling to stay afloat under the weight of increased federal regulations. Particularly following the public relations failure of the Democrats’ health care reform and the disastrous rollout of Common Core, Secretary Clinton’s impeccable foreign policy credentials will need to be balanced with a heavy focus on traditional domestic Democratic priorities such as education, equality, and taking care of America’s poor. These domestic priorities will be needed to rally her base in hopes of fending off a GOP candidate with proven job creation skills and market-based solutions to joblessness, hunger, lack of access to healthcare, and economic malaise.
Not only must Secretary Clinton’s VP candidate be able to work as a partner to balance her strong-handed leadership style, he or she must ably articulate the Left’s unwavering confidence in government to solve these pressing problems, and offer a charismatic campaign style to excite voters and compensate for Clinton’s forced delivery on the stump. If she hopes to implement the progressive agenda she began developing well before 2008, she will need a salesman: someone who is unassuming but has broad appeal and a record of mobilizing the Democratic base.
Before the scandals that rocked his post-Presidential bid, Fmr. Senator John Edwards would have been ideal for this role, but the best choice in today’s Democratic Party is probably Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley. While he is not seen as a leader on the world’s stage, Governor O’Malley represents a Democrat domestic policy voice that would complement Senator Clinton’s solid international credentials. He is a charismatic politician with a strong track record of selling domestic government programs with a practical passion that harkens back to the Democratic Party of JFK.
A Pence-Martinez GOP ticket versus Clinton-O’Malley on the Left will serve to highlight the significant policy differences espoused by the two parties and their radically different views on numerous issues. Such a matchup would treat American voters to something they have not enjoyed in a very long time: substantive policy debates about contrasting visions of the role of government.
Giving American voters a real choice between opposing visions of the future is essential to our democratic system, and will ultimately strengthen our nation. These tickets would enable us, as a country, to hear articulated the real differences between the parties, and collectively decide the direction we want the country to move.
