Last week, Virginia, New Jersey and New York City had high-profile elections that garnered national attention. For the first time in more than 20 years, New York City has a Democratic mayor. Virginia — one of the most purple of states in the country — ended its bitter gubernatorial election when Democrat Terry McAuliffe won the governorship. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie retained his office and swiftly defeated his opponent.
But instead of talking about what these politicians will do for their cities or states or what issues they campaigned on, everyone is transfixed on how these election results will affect the 2016 presidential election.
Did Christie seem presidential in this victory speech? Is his proactive personality going to win him support in the Iowa Straw Poll? If Virginia now has a Democrat for governor-elect, is a Democratic president a surefire conclusion?
At first this seems like utter nonsense. Why are we looking three years down the road when we have things to worry about presently? And in addition to this, should we be more concerned election-wise about the 2014 midterm elections?
The reason everybody is in “2016 election mode” is because nothing is happening in Washington. We already know the Obamacare rollout was a disaster — that’s old news. Determining whether the Affordable Care Act will accrue new enrollees when the website is fixed is just outright speculation. We know the chief executive is incapable of implementing laws and keeping campaign promises.
And we know Congress cannot get things done, either. Immigration reform? Dead. Background checks? Dead. Tax reform? Because nobody seems to be interested in fixing the tax code, it’s safe to say that it looks dead.
But hey, at least we can talk about how Sen. Rand Paul is now “damaged goods” after the plagiarism accusations. Why is this story popular now? Well for one, nothing else is getting done in the country. More importantly, it will have “implications” for the upcoming presidential race. The truth is, though this story is talked about now ad nauseam, in a few years’ time this story will be a distant memory — even though it has current “direct implications” on Paul’s presidential run.
Another reason we talk about 2016 is because power change in Congress is not likely to happen in 2014. The House of Representatives will still be in Republican control, even though Democrats only need to net 17 seats to regain the majority. House seats are too safe, and the politicians are too entrenched in their districts. Republicans will face difficulty in taking over the Senate, especially when their party leader is engaged in a primary fight.
But instead of talking about the status quo being upheld in the 2014 elections, we can talk about whether Sen. Ted Cruz will run for president.
By looking too far out into the future, we lose track of the present. This could be the reason so many issues are not being addressed. Immigration reform? We can do that next year when it is more politically palpable. Tax reform? When we get a majority in the Congress, we should be able to vote on that.
And the crazy thing is, while we are looking for a new executive, we still have a current executive. Perhaps this is wide-eyed optimism, but things can still be done. We can seize the time, seize the moment and get things done that will positively affect the country. Forget the 2016 elections, and focus on getting things done now.
But seriously, will Hillary run?
Michael Beato is a UF economics sophomore. His column runs on Tuesdays. A version of this column ran on page 7 on 11/12/2013 under the headline "We have work to do before 2016"
