Of all of the Democrats who are running for their party’s nomination for president or appear to be running the one I favor most at present is New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker. This post at The Hill by Alexander Bolton provides a good explanation for what that is:
Asked by NBC anchor Kristen Welker whether Democrats are making a mistake of shrinking their coalition with purity tests, Booker responded that his party “has failed this moment.”
“I’m proud of so many things that my Democratic colleagues are doing. But as a whole, our party has failed this moment. It’s why I’ve called for new leadership in America,” he said, going on to argue that party leaders have gotten too mired in partisan fighting.
“I’ve called for generational renewal because this left/right divide is killing our country. And our adversaries know it. They come onto our social media and try to whip up hate in America. That is one of our biggest crises,” he said.
That’s similar to the reason I voted for Barack Obama in 2008. This echoes the rationale that led me to support Barack Obama in 2008. In that case, however, the bipartisan tone of the campaign did not survive contact with governing—whether due to political constraints, party incentives, or presidential choice.
Booker’s case differs in at least one important respect. He brings a broader governing background, having served both as a mayor, an executive role requiring practical coalition-building, and as a U.S. senator. More importantly, he has sustained this message for over a decade rather than adopting it solely in a presidential campaign.
The relevant question, therefore, is not whether Booker can articulate a bipartisan vision but whether he can maintain it under the structural pressures that have pushed recent presidents toward partisanship. His record suggests a greater likelihood than we have seen in recent cycles, though those pressures remain formidable.
Whether a President Booker could sustain such an approach remains uncertain but it is, in my view, a more plausible prospect than it has been in roughly twenty years.
Your wish for a bipartisan president is a fantasy. Things are too tribal. Working with the other party means you face a primary challenge. Having followed Booker since he was a mayor I dont think he would be a bad choice but his “friends” in the senate on the R side arent going to support anything he offers if its perceived as helping him. Even, maybe especially, if its good policy they wont want Booker or any D to look successful as it increases their chance of winning the next election besides their primary risk.
I think Shapiro is the likely choice now. Rahm is too closely associated with the Clintons who have lost their glitter. Maybe if his time as mayor was a resounding success but I dont think that was the case?
Steve