New York’s primary has rarely been more than a footnote in presidential history. But on Tuesday that all changed. Donald Trump won his home state by a substantial margin, while Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders, son of Brooklyn.
A prediction: The minute the results are final, Republican stalwarts will crank up the volume on calls for Gov. John Kasich to leave the race. He should ignore them. Mr. Sanders also has no reason to give up his fight.
Mr. Trump and Ted Cruz both want Mr. Kasich out of the competition. Mr. Trump figures that if it’s a two-person race, he’s more likely to start winning more contests with an actual majority of votes.
Mr. Cruz knows it is now nearly impossible for him to win the nomination outright, particularly with Mr. Kasich still around. So the thoroughly unlikable Texan, who has proved he will do or say nearly anything to win, has been raising weak ballot challenges aimed at disqualifying Mr. Kasich from various state contests, and fanning rumors that Mr. Kasich is angling to be a Trump vice president. The Kasich camp denies this.
Mr. Kasich is not an exciting candidate, or even a political moderate. But he is the most sane-sounding individual in the Republican field, and has been from the start. Unlike his rivals, he’s shown a willingness to play by the rules. His presence in the race offers moderate Republicans a palatable alternative in the primaries and caucuses, and also if there is a real fight at the convention.
Bernie Sanders on Tuesday in Erie, Pa. Credit Sam Hodgson for The New York Times
Mr. Sanders has always stood more for a vision than for reality, especially with a Republican-led Congress. As he and Mrs. Clinton tore into each other in last week’s debate in Brooklyn, some Democrats worried that the nasty fracas would hurt the party. Others want Mr. Sanders to get out and let Mrs. Clinton focus on the Trump threat.
Mr. Sanders’s presence has made this an immeasurably more substantive race, in which both candidates’ policies have been better vetted, and as a result, better delineated. That’s the best preparation for the general election. Yes, Mrs. Clinton’s lead is nearly insurmountable, but it should be voters who erase the “nearly.”
Mr. Sanders has voiced the concerns and energized millions of young people, many of them voting for the first time. His candidacy has forced the party to go deeper on addressing issues like wealth inequality, college tuition costs and the toll of globalization — important points of distinction with Republicans. What’s more, Mr. Sanders’s commitment to small individual contributions has put the lie to Democrats’ excuses that they, too, must play the big money game to win. This is a message too seldom heard in the party that first championed campaign finance reform. That it’s back is long overdue, good for Democrats and good for campaigning. Mrs. Clinton “is clearly irritated by the fact that she has to deal with this guy,” the Democratic strategist David Axelrod said in an interview. “But he’s pushed her on a lot of issues in a positive way, and I think that his young supporters will be bitterly resentful if anyone tries to shove him out of the race.”
Voters are keeping these also-ran candidates going. When Mr. Sanders loses in a state, he raises more money, not less. Voters consistently choose Mr. Kasich as the Republican most likely to beat Mrs. Clinton. This refusal to anoint a front-runner in either party appears in poll after poll, as dispirited voters declare that they simply don’t like Mr. Trump, Mr. Cruz or Mrs. Clinton. This should be a wake-up call to leaders of both parties. They are missing something big about their own members’ priorities, and their mood. A spirited nominating season might teach them what voters actually want from their president. So far, voters are saying they aren’t willing to settle for a party favorite, and don’t want to be cheated out of a choice.