Al Giordano’s call to arms is provocative and somewhat inspirational. And when Al makes a prediction, you best take it seriously. I do have some problems with his analysis, however. I think he’s shoehorning a lot of complicated factors into a too-tight box when he focuses so heavily on the age of various presidential candidates. I really doubt, for example, that age or the youth vote were very big factors in Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 victory over Herbert Hoover. I’m not sure Jimmy Carter’s age was much of a focus in 1976, either. Ford’s presidential pardon of Nixon and Carter’s strength in the South and among evangelicals were much bigger factors. Even Clinton’s 1992 victory was more influenced by a strong third-party challenge than the spry Clinton-Gore ticket.
I didn’t mention JFK’s victory because I’d have to agree that his youth played an important role, but it didn’t hurt that his candidacy mobilized Catholics, either.
Having said all that, it’s Giordano’s premise that Hillary Clinton cannot rely on getting the same kind of turnout that Barack Obama enjoyed among young voters (because of her age) or African-Americans (because she isn’t Barack Obama). He also insists that Clinton can’t make up the difference with women because they already vote in such high percentages. These are assertions that are worth consideration. Overall, I remain unconvinced that her age would put her at a generational disadvantage against a much younger Republican. Young people are capable of comparing Clinton’s policies to Ted Cruz’s or Marco Rubio’s or Rand Paul’s or Paul Ryan’s and realizing that they prefer Clinton’s. That doesn’t mean that they’ll be excited about Clinton and get to work organizing on her behalf, however. If she’s going to have a problem with the youth vote, it won’t be that they prefer her opponent. It will be that she doesn’t inspire them. And I don’t think age is that much of a factor in that. Perhaps she’s been around too long, but that’s a slightly different issue.
Where Al and I agree completely is on our assessments of Clinton’s skills as a politician. ‘Overrated’ is putting it mildly. That’s not to say she is a bad politician. She’s hard-working, tenacious, smart, understands the issues, knows how to work the refs, has a huge organization and donor base, massive support within the party organization and in Congress, and has more relevant experience than any possible opponent.
But she does say some pretty stupid tone-deaf things sometimes. And she doesn’t have a good track record of picking smart, ethical people to run her organizations. Still, I don’t think the risk with Clinton is that she’ll lose and hand the White House to the Republicans. The risk is more that she’ll show bad judgment in her foreign policy and that she’ll repeat some of her husband’s more egregious cave-ins to big business.
But, again, you ignore Al’s advice at your peril.
