Dear Democratic presidential candidates: I know all 23 of you want to run against President Trump, but only one will get that opportunity. If you truly believe your own righteous rhetoric, some of you ought to be spending your time and energy in another vital pursuit — winning control of the Senate. I’m talking to you, John Hickenlooper of Colorado, who would have a good chance of beating incumbent Republican Cory Gardner. I’m talking to you, Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana, who could knock off GOP incumbent Steve Daines. I’m even talking to you, Beto O’Rourke, who would have a better chance than any other Texas Democrat against veteran Republican John Cornyn.
And I’m talking to you, too, Stacey Abrams of Georgia, even though you haven’t jumped in. You came within a whisker of being elected governor, and you have a national profile that would bring in a tsunami of campaign funds. You could beat Republican David Perdue — and acquire real power to translate your stirring eloquence into concrete action. ...
Suppose some these candidates run for the Senate instead, would they still receive the same amount and intensity of press coverages? Would pundits and columnists still talk and write about them? Would the people still listen to or read about them?
It’s like telling a Wall Street investment banker “you should be a social worker because the world needs social workers more than it does investment bankers,” but then the world turns around and materially rewards an investment banker a hundred folds more than it does a social worker.
It’s liked telling elite universities to accept more disadvantaged students, then rather than praise, the world shrugs at the universities that actually serve a lot of disadvantaged students.
The voters say they want X, but then they actually reward Y and not X. In some sense, the politicians are just pursuing what the voters will actually reward, rather than what the voters say they want.
Originally posted by Axtremus: Not that I disagree with the op-ed, but ...
Suppose some these candidates run for the Senate instead, would they still receive the same amount and intensity of press coverages? Would pundits and columnists still talk and write about them? Would the people still listen to or read about them?
It’s like telling a Wall Street investment banker “you should be a social worker because the world needs social workers more than it does investment bankers,” but then the world turns around and materially rewards an investment banker a hundred folds more than it does a social worker.
It’s liked telling elite universities to accept more disadvantaged students, then rather than praise, the world shrugs at the universities that actually serve a lot of disadvantaged students.
The voters say they want X, but then they actually reward Y and not X. In some sense, the politicians are just pursuing what the voters will actually reward, rather than what the voters say they want.
That argument doesn’t work in this context. Unless getting elected isn’t the goal.
If they all have equal chances, they have only a 1 in 23 chance of being nominated, let alone elected. (And Tulsi Gabbard, not even that.)
If they ran for Senate, the chances of getting nominated would be much higher.
So, getting elected isn’t their goal. Sure, they’d love to win, but that’s a lottery ticket. They’re running for other reasons.
Jodi