It is a good idea. But we have a better one.
Washington State Democratic Party officials are working to bring one of the party’s presidential debates to the state. Party chair Tina Podlodowski has even started a petition, urging national officials to lead the battalion of Democratic candidates to Seattle to hash out the issues that will be pre-eminent in the next presidential election.
As we said, it’s a good idea. Washington has moved its presidential primary forward on next year’s calendar, and Democrats have decided to include the primary rather than only caucuses for allocating delegates to the national convention. Suddenly, this state in an out-of-the-way corner of the country will play a role in determining the nominees for 2020.
But, as we also said, we have a better idea. State Democratic leaders should consider Vancouver as the site for a debate.
We mention this with all due respect for our brethren in Seattle and Yakima. Newspaper editorial boards in both cities have recommended their towns as the location for a debate. And while they make valid points, we believe Clark County would be preferable.
Seattle, after all, is as blue as a 1902 Picasso painting; Democrats would be preaching to the choir and reinforcing criticism that the party is beholden to urban interests. Yakima is one of the redder parts of the state and not the ideal location for Democrats to gather.
Vancouver, on the other hand, would represent the purple voters the party must attract to recapture the White House in 2020. Clark County voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election by 316 votes; it favored Republican Bill Bryant that same year in the race for governor. On top of that, a debate in Vancouver would attract attention from Portland media as well as from throughout Washington.
Of course, presidential debates for either the primary or the general election are not conducted for the local population. They are designed to cater to a national TV audience and might as well be held in a studio with no live audience. But the symbolism of holding the debate in a growing swing county that combines urban and rural values would be powerful.
Certainly, there would be benefits to holding a debate anywhere in Washington. For too long, the state has been an afterthought in national politics and has held a presidential primary so meaningless that the vote was canceled twice in recent decades.
Now, Washington is a player in the selection process, and that should bring regional issues to the forefront. The state’s voters will be listening for the candidates’ thoughts about international trade in the agriculture, aerospace and high-tech industries; housing affordability; environmental protections; the cleanup at Hanford; offshore drilling; and infrastructure spending on things such as, say, interstate bridges. With at least 18 Democrats having declared for the race, voters will have a wide range of opinions from which to choose. (On the Republican side, President Donald Trump is not expected to face a viable primary challenge).
That widespread Democratic field has the party planning 12 debates — about one a month beginning in June. That’s June of this year, a reminder that the presidential election is closer than most of us care to imagine. It’s all part of a lengthy process for weeding out candidates and discussing issues and determining the best course for the nation.
As party leaders map out that process, two questions come to the forefront: Why not Washington? And, if Washington, why not Vancouver?
