Think 2016, not 2012, even if 2008 isn't over

BE-ELECTED
by Chad Rubel

Apparently, some people aren't getting enough out of the 2008 presidential race, and they have to start focusing on 2012 or 2016.

So let's leap into this hypothetical conclusion: Let's break down 2012 -- Hovercars have almost been invented. The Chicago Cubs haven't won the World Series yet, but they're close to doing so.

If a Democrat wins office in 2008, would that person receive a challenge in 2012 from the other major contender from 2008?

The power of incumbency tends to reduce the number of challengers. George H.W. Bush (1988) and Al Gore (2000) were reigning vice presidents when they ran for president. Bush had a lot of challengers, in fact, Bush finished third in Iowa behind Bob Dole and Pat Robertson. Gore's major challenge came from Bill Bradley.

But being president is a more powerful incumbency. Yet in 1976 and 1980, the incumbent president received significant challenges in the primaries: Gerald Ford (Ronald Reagan) and Jimmy Carter (Ted Kennedy). But generally incumbency reduces that likelihood of an outside challenge.

If there is a challenge, Obama or Clinton would likely be that person. John Edwards isn't likely to make a 3rd run for president, and what slim chances he would have could only come if McCain won in 2008.

Given the troubles plaguing whomever takes the oath on January 20, 2009 (Iraq, economy, health care), that person might be vulnerable in that the problems won't get solved in only 4 years. Bill Clinton had 8 years to clean up the destruction of the previous 12 years, and he couldn't get it all done.

So whether Obama or Clinton gets the nod in November, the other might throw up a challenge in 2012, regardless of the record of the incumbent.

If McCain wins in 2008, Obama and Clinton would be the top two contenders for the nomination, and we can do this all over again. But it would come at a costly price to our country.

But both Obama and Clinton might want to think about 2016 instead. Obama's youth might work in his favor, but Clinton should also reconsider 2016. Yes, Clinton will be 69 years old in November 2016, but she would have 8 more years of Senate experience, perhaps even the Senate Majority Leader position by then. And while we have made fun of McCain for his age, Clinton would be in a much more different boat because Baby Boomers, who have had their generation in the White House since 1993, would be less likely to consider age as a negative factor.

Ironically, had the campaign gone nicer, a ticket featuring both top Democratic contenders would have served the VP pick well. Vice presidents haven't had a long tradition of making the transition after 8 years, but recent trends with George H.W. Bush (and Al Gore) would indicate the voters are willing to go along with that.

It's true that the 2008 "loser" will have to run against the reigning vice president in 2016, but that seems much more likely than challenging an incumbent president in 2012.

The goal of Obama and Clinton is to be president in 2008. But given the mess the next resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will inherit, the "loser" in 2008 might want to set sights for 2016. There will still be plenty to do.