“Houston, they have a problem” are the words to apply to the two parties, though the problems assume different forms. The Democrats seem to be down to exactly one candidate, who performs well enough in some limited venues, but is in other ways flawed. Much of the country believes she’s dishonest. She’s under investigation by the FBI, which is not what you want when you’re running for president. And even if it turns out that there isn’t a fire, the smoke may put off some swing voters. She has been known to show fairly poor candidate skills and political instincts, and she may do so again in the fairly near future. Her campaign has been rocked by so many surprises that one cannot assume they have stopped.
But even without these annoying small problems, there is no precedent for a candidate having cruised unopposed to a nomination, which may be like a team skipping spring training and going to the opening game with slow reflexes, soft muscles and unshed winter fat. Could she sprint on to the field next September trim, fit and ready? Or would she lumber on to it, creaky and slow?
Where’s the suspense, if she wraps things up early? Who will tune in to see her natter to Bernie, especially if she leads by a sizeable margin? What if he drops out? Can there be a debate with only one person? Who will remember she’s there?
Republicans, of course, have the opposite problem: Too much excitement, too many people and too many slug-fests and wars. They have an abundance of tested and talented people, and they have a front-runner who could never in a million years win an election, but who clings to the top of a fairly low ceiling because the opposition to him is so split.
Their primary season is much too exciting, and their debates are thrilling, high tension, no-holds barred brawls that attract a huge audience, while the Democrats look to expire of terminal lassitude. Only in the Democrats of today could a no-name failed governor of a small, boring state such as Martin O’Malley be called a contender, while only in the modern Republican Party could genuine heavyweights such as Chris Christie and John Kasich be squeezed off the stage and into low digits.
The Democrats would kill to have some of their numbers and zest, just as the Republicans would kill to have some of their order and certainty. The solution? Break the Republican field in two and hand one half of it off to the Democrats, to relieve the intense pressure of right-wing congestion and give the left-wing a little much-needed excitement. Taking the step is the only part that demands resolution—and then the details fix themselves.
Conservatives always denounce some on their own side as RINOs — Republicans in Name Only — which means that by their lights they’re practically Democrats. So the transition to being genuine Democrats on the part of so many should be a fairly small matter indeed. Let them be DINOs — Democrats in name only — to annoy the purists in a whole other party, and give Mrs. Clinton the workout she needs.
Donald Trump, need we say, once was a Democrat. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush joke about being brothers, so it would be all in the family to lend Jeb to Hillary. And while no one would pay to watch her toying with Bernie, pair her with Christie — “To the moon, Alice!” — and the lines would extend round the block.
Noemie Emery, a Washington Examiner columnist, is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and author of “Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families.”
