No ace in Clinton-Trump race
Lubna Nadvi does not see a great choice in the US presidential race
Super Tuesday, a day that comes before the US elections in November, has historically determined who will contest the nomination and ultimately become the party choice to run for the presidency.
The recent Super Tuesday appeared to result in Hillary Clinton emerging front-runner for the Democratic Party and Donald Trump for the Republicans.
Pundits who watched the primaries closely and assumed a candidate like Trump – who has made controversial statements targeting certain communities and sensitive issues from the start of his campaign – probably would not have been a leading candidate by this stage have been surprised by his endurance.
The results for Clinton are less surprising, given she has been a public political figure for much of her life, having served in various positions in public office, including Secretary of State, a key cabinet position in the US government.
She was also First Lady for two terms while her husband, Bill Clinton, served as president in the 1990s.
Other candidates like Bernie Sanders for the Democratic Party and Ted Cruz for the Republican Party, while still remaining in the nomination race for their respective parties, will probably have to work hard to topple the leading contenders since they are less well known nationally and also do not seem to have captured the imagination of the US electorate in the way their more famous counterparts have.
The US presidential elections, held every four years, are monitored very closely, not just by American citizens and stakeholders but the whole world, bearing in mind the impact US domestic and foreign policy (usually guided by the president) has on the rest of the world.
The current presidential race is particularly significant for a number of reasons. These include the state of world affairs (largely unstable and prone to security threats), a growing anti-Muslim and anti-minorities sentiment within the US, the personalities of the leading candidates and the fact that the possibility of the first female president being elected is more of a likelihood in this election than in previous ones.
So what exactly will it mean for both the US and the global community if either Clinton or Trump is elected?
The prognosis for the election of either is very bleak in terms of what they bring to the presidency. It is true that Clinton’s experience in the political world will hold her in good stead to possibly survive the ruthless environment in Washington, but her track record on many issues is of great concern.
In particular she has been involved in a number of scandals, including using a private e-mail server for official business while serving as Secretary of State (which violates security protocols).
She has also come under criticism for the loss of life of US officials serving in Libya during her tenure and her personal position on and support for Israel raises questions about her ability to handle the sensitive region of the Middle East, which virtually every new US president has to tread around with caution.
Her almost celebrity-like status, though, has enabled her to remain in the limelight, and she continues to capture the female, youth, African American and minorities vote through her popular rhetoric.
Her online campaign page lists 112 reasons to vote for her, which focuses largely on her experience of family, childcare and healthcare issues as well as her contribution towards America’s various foreign policy agenda issues.
Trump, on the other hand, has virtually no experience in global politics and, while being a successful and wealthy businessman, he has demonstrated little understanding of the nuances of domestic and global politics.
Given that he has also vacillated between being a supporter of the Democratic and Republican parties in the past few decades, it is not clear whether he is a liberal or conservative individual.
This is not helpful for voters who want to see a candidate being firm in the political values that he espouses.
Although he has chosen to stick with the Republican Party over the period of this latest bid for the US presidency, his public comments in the early and more recent period of his campaign have left much to be desired.
His lack of discretion and views on minority communities in the US have left even many Americans horrified at his insensitivity towards in particular Muslim Americans and Latino Americans, and what he would “do” with them if elected president.
His campaign also appears very thin in terms of substantive policy on several key issues, and this will have an impact on whether Republican supporters will find him a substantive candidate.
It is evident that both candidates are compromised in various ways, given their histories and track records and that the election of either will create a range of new realities that will have to be managed.
Given that a new American president brings new implications for possible changes in policy direction and either increased co-operation with regional and global players or a decrease in co-operation, this US election race will be watched closely by both domestic and international audiences, more for what could change in the political landscape than what would stay the same.
Lubna Nadvi is a political scientist based at the UKZN school of social sciences.