One of the things I liked to do when compelled to cover political campaigns was spend time with what we politely called "minor" (impolitely "fringe") candidates. These were the folks that someone--not me--had decided had no chance to win election.

Few of them would admit this oppressive fact, and I suspect quite a few were genuinely hopeful of their chances. After all, unlikely things do come to pass--I remember that the 1992 edition of Michael Barone's Almanac of American Politics was dismissive of Bill Clinton's chances for national office. Saint Jude is the patron saint of lost causes, and if underdogs never prevailed there would be no medals struck to honor him.

Some of them were smooth running crazy, others were pragmatic. I remember a small-town pharmacist once told me he ran for office solely because his aging mother enjoyed seeing her son's name in the newspaper. Some of them were one-issue types who wanted to make a more or less principled case for a flat-rate income tax or free marijuana. Some were self-aggrandizers primarily interested in making mischief. Some cynically reckoned they could monetize whatever attention they received.

As a writer, I considered these minor candidates far more interesting than their better-known, better-funded opponents, either because they realized they had nothing to lose by speaking their minds or because their minds were so fogged by delusion that they imagined their words irresistible.

Most career politicians strive for a certain kind of handsome, bland mediocrity--the safe, banker-friendly, good-for-business look--that carries elections. Once you get past a certain threshold it's probably more important not to wear an off-putting tie than to say something brilliant in a debate. The pros realize politics is a often a sport of attrition where field position and game management are more important than the ability to throw the long bomb. And the longer the campaign, the more the odds favor the stolid survivor over the charismatic sparkplug.

That's why I believe it's likely that the 2016 presidential race will eventually come down to Hillary Clinton versus one of the more buttoned-up GOP candidates such as John Kasich or Marco Rubio. We ought to enjoy Bernie Sanders and the various outre Republicans while we've got them, for fortune favors the bland and boring.

I'm not dismissing Sanders outright; depending on what poll you pay attention to, he commands the support of between 19 and 26 percent of Democrats. He probably has even more support among progressive independents. But the concerns about his "electability" seem to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm sure there are a lot of people who simply don't believe a self-described "democratic socialist" could prevail in a national election.

And now that it appears Hillary Clinton will survive the various investigations into her conduct as secretary of state, Sanders will probably function as an ideological counterweight to whatever candidate the Republicans eventually decide on. He may draw Clinton further to the left than she might otherwise run, but it seems unlikely that he'll challenge her for the nomination. Barring something unforeseen--and we're still a long way out--Clinton will be the nominee. And if she isn't the nominee, Sanders won't be, either.

Probably because he's not really a Democrat. I've followed his almost 40-year career for a long time, since before he was elected to Congress in 1990. He's never previously run or identified as a Democrat. He's always been an independent, albeit one who, for practical reasons, chose to caucus with them in Congress. (He had to caucus with one of the major parties in order to serve on any congressional committees.)

I doubt Sanders has any illusions. I don't think he ever believed he could really win the nomination. But he could have more impact on the national discourse running within the framework of the party than he could as a third-party candidate. He's probably pragmatic enough to understand that a third-party campaign would only draw votes from the Democratic nominee anyway. I suspect he'd rather have a slightly more progressive Democrat in the White House than any of the Republican candidates, and he's pledged to support whoever wins the Democratic nomination.

But I doubt that his identification with the Democratic Party runs very deep.

That doesn't bother me. Sanders' candidacy has already raised important questions about income and wealth inequity in this country, and his plain-spoken common-sense campaign has gone a long way to erasing the stigma that attaches toward words like "socialist" and "liberal." In a campaign where a lot of mainstream candidates seem to be banking on the closing of American minds, Sanders has opened a few up.

There's nothing minor about that.

------------v------------

Philip Martin is a columnist and critic for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at pmartin@arkansasonline.com and read his blog at blooddirtandangels.com.

Editorial on 10/27/2015