EMAIL DETAILS

Joe Biden should run for president: The vice president won’t win, but it
would be good for Hillary Clinton and Democrats.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/joe_biden_should_run_for_president_the_vice_president_won_t_win_but_it_would.html

The vice president won’t win, but it’d be the best thing for Hillary
Clinton and the Democratic Partybt.
[image: Joe Biden] The Democrats need him.

Photo by Carlos Barria/Reuters

If you want a sense of what Vice President Joe Biden is mulling for the
next stage of his career, just look at his travel plans. On Wednesday, he
will visit New Hampshire
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/joe-biden-new-hampshire-115319.html>
to collect an award. This comes a week after a trip to South Carolina
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-18/joe-biden-s-south-carolina-visit-that-was-totally-not-a-campaign-trip>,
and two weeks after a stop in Iowa
<http://time.com/3708195/joe-biden-2016-decision-2/>. In both states, he
met with local Democrats and party officials—the kinds of people you talk
to when you want to run for president. He even said he would make a
decision—by the end of the summer.
[image: Jamelle Bouie] Jamelle Bouie
<http://www.slate.com/authors.jamelle_bouie.html>

Jamelle Bouie is a *Slate* staff writer covering politics, policy, and race.

In a sense, Biden is already running for president; he’s testing his party
support before jumping on to the stage for another national performance.
But unfortunately for his prospects, he’s bound to run into the same
problem as every other Democratic presidential hopeful: Hillary Clinton, or
rather, her massive presence in the Democratic Party.

Barring a change to the landscape, there won’t be a Democratic primary
campaign next year. Instead, Hillary Clinton will announce her bid for the
nomination, and we’ll almost immediately move to a general election
campaign. The former secretary of state is the definition of inevitable:
There are dissenters, but after winning second place in the momentous 2008
race, the party and its machinery
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/hillary_clinton_will_face_no_serious_democratic_opponent_her_campaign_team.html>
are mostly behind her candidacy.
Advertisement

It’s not a bad position. In an uncompetitive primary, the anointed nominee
can sidestep narrow appeals in favor of a broader message. And rather than
waste time with nomination battles in unwinnable places like Texas or South
Carolina, she can focus her fire in critical states like Florida, Ohio,
Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Likewise, without a national primary campaign
to divide its various factions, the Democratic Party can devote its
fundraising to organizing its troops and attacking its Republican
opponents. By the time the GOP has picked a nominee, Democrats will have
been six months into an onslaught of political ordinance.

If Biden runs, he’ll run as a contender with the skills to challenge
Clinton on the trail.

But this dream for party professionals could become a nightmare for the
actual candidate. As Matthew Yglesias notes for *Vox*
<http://www.vox.com/2015/2/17/8047957/hillary-clinton-opponents>, Clinton’s
uncontested nomination is perilous for her and the Democratic Party. Absent
“real debates, real media strategy, real policy rollouts, and all the other
accompaniments of a presidential nominating congress,” Clinton enters the
game “dangerously unprepared” against a “battle-tested” Republican nominee.

The huge advantage of a competitive primary is that it tempers a candidate
for the general election. After months of stump speeches, debates,
setbacks, and challenges, the eventual nominee is prepped for the rigor of
a national contest against a capable opponent. She has a stronger sense of
her platform and the kinds of appeals that work for public consumption; she
can better account for mistakes, better relate to the press, and is less
vulnerable to the kinds of disasters that can destroy a candidacy.

If Clinton were an active politician—if she had a long history of
successful elections—this wouldn’t be a huge problem. But the fact is that
Clinton has had three efforts: Her 2000 run for Senate, her 2006
re-election race, and her 2008 primary campaign. And of the three, only the
latter was as competitive and high stakes as a presidential election. By
all measures, Clinton is a strong candidate for 2016, but she *needs* the
practice. She needs a sparring partner.

Which brings us back to Joe Biden. There’s almost no chance that the vice
president could *win* the nomination. He lacks party support—most Democrats
have all but pledged their fealty to Clinton—and enthusiasm. Sen. Elizabeth
Warren has a “Draft Warren” movement behind her; there are no “Biden
Democrats” clamoring for him to crisscross the country. At the same time,
he’s not a marginal figure. He’s a sitting vice president and veteran of
two primary runs and two presidential campaigns. If Vermont Sen. Bernie
Sanders or former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb runs, they’ll run as gadflies. If
Biden runs, he’ll run as a contender with the skills to challenge Clinton
on the trail. And while Clinton could avoid a debate with either of the
other figures, it’s much harder to sidestep a showdown with Biden. He has
*stature*.

In a primary race against Clinton, Biden will lose. But for the sake of the
Democratic Party, he should run. Yes, there’s little glory in defeat. But a
Biden campaign could force Clinton to sharpen her skills for her eventual
fight with an eager and thirsty Republican Party. Even Clinton’s supporters
think this is necessary. “I wish we would have some other candidates
running,” said the pro-Clinton vice chairwoman of the Indiana Democratic
Party in an interview with *Politico*
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/hillary-clinton-dnc-2016-115342.html>,
“I think it would give the nation the opportunity to have a debate.” Which
is to say that while Biden wouldn’t have Clinton’s resources, he’d have
some support for his challenge, perhaps as the consensus candidate for
those Democrats who aren’t “Ready for Hillary.”

Here’s the truth: Democrats aren’t doomed to lose 2016, but they aren’t
favorites either. By itself, public fatigue with the Democratic Party gives
the GOP a clear shot at winning the White House
<http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/obamas-approval-rating-and-the-outlook-for-the-2016-presidential-election/>.
Add Obama’s middling approval
<http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/obama-job-approval> to the
Republican column and—with the Democrats’ demographic advantage
<http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/newsdesk/the-most-valuable-voters-of-2016-20150218>—you
have an almost even presidential matchup.

If Clinton is destined for the nomination, then Democrats need her at the
top of her game, and a Biden campaign is the best way to get her there.


Eric D. Schwerin
eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com

Sent from my iPhon