Bill Clinton once said that choosing a running mate was the first act a candidate could do which seemed presidential before they were actually elected president. Or something. I can't find the quote online.
That's true, but like any appointment, it gets picked apart by the public more than it gets praised, if anyone notices at all. And I think for gubernatorial candidates, that is even for true.
Alex Sink made a choice that was "safe" picking Rod Smith. Rick Scott "bucked conventional wisdom" with Jennifer Carroll. Neither decision will win any votes for either candidates. And honestly, they won't lose any either when the cards are finally down. It will be Sink and Scott who get judged by the general public, not their choices for Lieutenant Governor.
My thoughts are this. Scott picked somebody with legislative experience, something he doesn't have, so it is no bucking of any wisdom that he would choose an experienced politician to balance out his ticket. He also picked a black woman, two other things which he is not. The obvious political reason for this is that it will broaden the appeal of his ticket, except it won't. Black voters will still go overwhelmingly for Alex Sink. I guarantee it. When Carroll ran for Congress against Corrinne Brown, she never made any significant headway against the liberal black House member. The notion that running black Republicans will make more black voters rush to a ticket whose leader thinks reaching out to Hispanics means eating dinner later, or register with a party which has proudly chipped away at affirmative action measures, is a conservative pipe dream. Yes, there are black Republicans, but this decision won't be what brings them to polls any more than a lack of black candidates has kept black Democrats voting the other way.
Bottom line: more people label Carroll's selection as craven pragmatism than bold politics, fairly or unfairly. But come election day, nobody will remember this.
As for Sink's choice, I think most voters have forgotten already. Sink decided to announce her pick days before the Primary election. The idea was that it would suck some news attention away from the heated GOP primary at a time when the Democrat was coasting to the nomination. But did anyone notice that linked TBO story already had figured Smith to be the top choice? A former state Sen. and state attorney, Smith has a legislative background Sink lacks, providing the same professional balance Carroll does for Scott.
But this man is as vanilla as they come. White. Male. Failed statewide candidate in the last race for governor. Is just doesn't get more exciting than this. Will large numbers of people come and vote because of Smith? They haven't before.
So now the campaigns have two people who will do campaign events, though crowds will probably only show up for the gubernatorial candidates themselves. They have two people to place phone calls to donors, though the donors who get a thank you from the LG candidates will know how low they are on the Christmas card lists.
Smith and Carroll are both experiences state legislators, and if there is any genuine duty involved in the job of Lieutenant Governor, it is working directly with lawmakers to get bills passed. But politically, these choices are about the least important decision Scott or Sink has to make this season.
It definitely looks like both sides took the easy way out. Right now everyone...especially Democrats....seem to be running for cover. Hints are coming out that Democrats may agree to extend the Bush tax cuts 'for only one year.' If these tax cuts would have had an impact on the job situation, why have they not over the last couple years that they have been place?
ReplyDeleteI'm certain both parties are in touch with those making over $250,000. right now looking for more donations. Is this why Democrats are suddenly thinking about a one-year extension?
Why doesn't someone simply take a survey of those making say over $500,000? Specifically ask how many jobs are they prepared to create right now if the tax cuts are extended? Then hold them to the promise.
Instead of extending what did not work and what contributed to the national debt, the Democrats should look at things in a different way. Offer those same over $500,000 group tax incentives to create the jobs. Let those people create jobs to earn a tax break.
Ever since the tax cuts were implemented, we have lost jobs....800,000 jobs per month at its peak. How was the tax cut working all that time?
And then Republicans did what NO US government has ever done.....start two wars with no way to pay for them. In WWII there was a huge effort to sell War Bonds, but this time I think they wanted it to seem that these two wars were not going to change everyday life for everyday Americans - except they did...in a BIG way...the US economy had no way to support both a huge tax cut and two wars, and it crashed.
It is time for Democrats to come out forcefully and stand for economic recovery.....not tuck their tails between their legs and cave to Republican pressure which will just give the Republicans even more to crow about.
Democrats need to stand firm and continue on a path of economic recovery.
Clearly both sides needed to pick someone that would fire up their bases....neither succeeded, so it's a wash in term of the election.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but I'm just not so sure running mates ever do a good job at firing people up. Palin may be a case in point. She seemed to bring excitement and enthusiasm to the McCain campaign, but within two weeks had as many negatives as positives with voters, and ultimately McCain got trounced. These people are just props, a way for a candidate to be two places at once, but they ultimately have no impact with voters.
ReplyDelete