Why the 2016 Presidential Campaign Will Be the Worst Ever

[DonViejo]

The early onset of scandals, attacks, and hyperpartisanship will make every candidate retreat into his or her shell.

By John Dickerson

s it possible that the 2016 presidential campaign is already a mess? You’re probably not thinking much about it, which is healthy. No wonder you’re looking so trim and your cheeks are pink. But the candidates in the thick of it can’t ignore the noise, and that’s not healthy.

In the political world, the pace of 2016 conversation has been quickening. Will the George Washington Bridge investigation kill New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s chances? Is it smart for Republicans to keep talking about the Clinton-era scandals? The latest round of analysis has been kicked off by the disclosure of 27,000 emails from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s staff. In 2009 and 2010 when he was Milwaukee County executive, his staffers were coordinating his political activity while on government time, which is illegal. If you haven’t heard about these emails, don’t let anyone know or a member of the Democratic National Committee will visit you to perform a live reading. (As I type this, an email has arrived from the Democratic Governors Association linking to an editorial calling on Walker to disclose what he knew).

Trying to evaluate the political impact of events almost two years before the first primary is not an effective use of time. Voters are living their lives and not paying attention, and other issues will be more important come voting time. But potential presidential candidates can’t ignore these developments. They have to weigh their significance even to dismiss them. The corrosion of the campaign is now taking up more time in their day. Hillary Clinton has lived in this world since her husband announced he was running for president, and retirement hasn’t shielded her from the heat. Walker and Christie have been covered closely at the national level, but they are facing a new kind of teeth cleaning as potential presidential leaders.

Each of these politicians deserves some of the scrutiny—government investigations are news, so are the private diaries of close friends—but the permanent partisan war increases the intensity and the tempo of each new development. My inbox is full of Democrats trying to diminish Walker’s chances in his re-election this year, damage his aspirations for the future, or paint a negative image of the GOP by exposing one of its leading lights. Last week the Republican National Committee chairman was using the latest news about Hillary Clinton as an organizing tool. All of this swirl leads to a back-and-forth about relative levels of sin. Was Hillary Clinton’s abuse of power in the Travelgate firings worse than Christie’s Bridgegate? Is Bridgegate worse than Bengahzi? The DNC wants us to compare Walker’s troubles to Christie’s.

more
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/02/_2016_presidential_race_is_off_to_a_bad_start_scandals_and_partisan_attacks.html?wpisrc=newsletter_jcr:content&mc_cid=05e360aa79&mc_eid=7a8b58c8c3

[Always Randy]

1. or maybe the best

the early vetting of Christie via the media is a good thing---I live in Connecticut and we elect Democrats ---based on Christie's approach I-95 in CT will be closed during his term if he were elected---I just don't get the "worst" part---it's like Yankees and Red Sox fans do all the time----this is our sport----and I can't wait for our "Jimmy the Greek" ---Nate Silver to get that blog running------

[davidpdx]

2. The Republicans are going to have a hard time coming up with a viable candidate

and even harder coming up with someone who will please the moderate and right wing Republicans as well as draw independents. This is in addition to the demographics going against them. They have to find a way to win in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, and Iowa at the very least and not lose any of the states they got in 2008 or 2012 (including NC in 2012). That is a pretty damn tall order.