Saturday, November 14, 2015
Posted in
Politics
|
As I write this, Scott Walker and Rick Perry have dropped out on the Republican side, and Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb have dropped out on the Democratic side.
The Republicans
I don't believe that Donald Trump (narcissistic blowhard), Ben Carson* (deranged fabulist), Carly Fiorina* (pugnacious liar and poseur), Ted Cruz (egotistical troublemaker), Rand Paul* (flake) or Mike Huckabee* (religious flake) are electable, and Republican voters will eventually realize this and abandon those candidates. This is especially true of the candidates who have no government experience. That leaves Marco Rubio,* Jeb Bush* and Chris Christie* as the three most likely to get the Republican nomination. But before I talk about them, let me say that Bobby Jindal* and Lindsey Graham* have no personal appeal, so they won't prevail. John Kasich also has little personal appeal, although I think he has a sliver of a chance because he is more honest and original in his thinking.
Jeb Bush's campaign seems to be imploding as I write this. He comes across as a milquetoast, so I doubt he'll get the nomination. Americans are shallow and unsophisticated when it comes to selecting their leaders, and for that reason I think Christie won't get the nomination. Frankly, no one wants a pimply-faced fat man to represent their party (or country).
Rubio has the best chance of being the nominee. However, he looks and sounds like a boy (a petulant boy, in fact), and that will be a big strike against him, both in the primaries and in the general election. There is a chance, however, that a majority of Americans will see him as being youthful and vigorous (i.e., Kennedyesque), so his youth might work in his favor. John Kennedy, however, looked older than Rubio does at the same age.
On the outside chance that the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate one of the "unelectables" mentioned above, I think that person will be trounced by Hillary Clinton in the general election.
The Democrats
Bernie Sanders is a garrulous and even comical old man, and for that reason he won't get the Democratic nomination. The fact that he calls himself a socialist also kills his chances. In addition, the second debate showed that he is weak on foreign policy.
Martin O'Malley* would be a good Democratic candidate and president, but it is hard to get a handle on his character. He is, essentially, an unknown, and he doesn't give us a good reason to abandon Clinton and Sanders, both of whom are familiar to us and have characters we can relate to.
That leaves us with Hillary Clinton. Unlike in 2008, no strong candidate is running against her, so I expect her to get the nomination. Her liabilities are: her age (she is no longer pretty, which is, unfortunately, always a plus for women), her gender (a lot of people simply dislike women -- even women do), many of the smears made against her by Republicans over the years have stuck, and she is now seen as an "establishment" candidate. On the other hand, the public liked her husband when he was president, and a lot of people will be glad to have the Clintons back in the White House. Hillary Clinton's debating and political skills are second to none, and that will give her a big advantage.
Since I wrote this, the terrorist attacks in Paris have occurred, and the public is now worried about security. Consequently, both Ben Carson and Bernie Sanders have lost support because they are seen as weak on foreign policy and national security. What the public wants now is a tough, experienced man in the office, and Hillary Clinton is the toughest man in the race.
However, Clinton's loud and aggressive campaigning style has the potential to turn voters off. (It is a sad statement about our sexist society that male candidates can be loud and aggressive and not suffer for it.) In addition, the Democratic base now sees Hillary as being part of the establishment, and that will work against her. Democratic voters have shown a fondness for Quixotic candidates like Sanders in the past.
I think it's likely that Hillary Clinton will be our next president.
Update, March 8, 2016
Like all the pundits and prognosticators, I was wrong. Although Trump is getting only about 40% of the Republican vote, that is enough to put him in the lead because the other candidates are splitting the remainder of the vote. As I write this, Cruz seems to be gaining strength (although the polls show Trump winning the upcoming primaries).
My error in believing that none of the "unelectibles" could win the Republican nomination was based on past presidential elections in which Republican voters coalesced around an "establishment" candidate (George Bush Sr., George Bush Jr., Dole, McCain, Romney). However, it is also true that Republicans nominated Goldwater and Reagan, both of whom were seen as outsiders at the time. In this election, the establishment candidates were Jeb Bush and John Kasich, and they didn't have wide personal appeal (Rubio, in my view, is not an establishment candidate).
What amazes me is to see a majority of Republican voters supporting candidates who are truly horrid, and by that I mean Trump and Cruz. I had some faith in Republicans as a group to be rational, but supporting such candidates isn't rational at all. Trump is a narcissistic demagogue and a dishonest businessman, and Cruz is a narcissistic obstructionist. Neither of them has any respect for the rule of law, and both of them are bigots in various ways. But in this age of partisan extremism (mostly on the Republican side), I guess I was expecting too much.
What I didn't count on in this election was that a candidate (Trump) would come along whose demogoguery would win over the Republican party's working-class base as well as many evangelicals and conservatives. The Republican party's working-class base used to be the Democratic party's working-class base -- until Nixon's southern strategy and Ronald Reagan's charm pulled them into the Republican party. In the mean time, ultra-conservatives pushed out all the moderates from the party. That left ultra-conservatives at the top, and working-class bigots at the bottom. The ultra-conservatives haven't done enough to satisfy their working-class base, so the base has fled to Donald Trump. It appears, then, that Trump will be the Republican party's nominee, which wouldn't have happened if there were no winner-take-all Republican primaries and if the Republican party had super-delegates like the Democrats have.
So what will happen in November when Trump faces Clinton? Clinton will get the black vote, the hispanic vote and the Asian vote. The white vote will go to Trump, but not by huge margins. Most liberals will vote for Clinton, although some will sit out the election because Sanders lost. Many conservatives will sit out the election because they find Trump unpalatable, but many others will settle for him. Certainly, working class Republicans and "Reagan Democrats" will turn out for Trump. Some of the more educated voters may choose to stay home. The youth vote won't matter much because they never vote in large numbers. Some older people will be turned off to Trump, but others will see him as refreshing. Sadly, there may be enough misogynists in the populace to cause Clinton to lose, but I don't think so. The scenario that worries me the most is that Trump's spell on the country will spread, and more people will start seeing him as blunt and honest instead of the loathsome modern-day Hitler that he is. I still think that Clinton will win, but it won't be a slam-dunk.
___________________________
* Candidates marked by an asterisk have dropped out since I wrote this article.
The Republicans
I don't believe that Donald Trump (narcissistic blowhard), Ben Carson* (deranged fabulist), Carly Fiorina* (pugnacious liar and poseur), Ted Cruz (egotistical troublemaker), Rand Paul* (flake) or Mike Huckabee* (religious flake) are electable, and Republican voters will eventually realize this and abandon those candidates. This is especially true of the candidates who have no government experience. That leaves Marco Rubio,* Jeb Bush* and Chris Christie* as the three most likely to get the Republican nomination. But before I talk about them, let me say that Bobby Jindal* and Lindsey Graham* have no personal appeal, so they won't prevail. John Kasich also has little personal appeal, although I think he has a sliver of a chance because he is more honest and original in his thinking.
Jeb Bush's campaign seems to be imploding as I write this. He comes across as a milquetoast, so I doubt he'll get the nomination. Americans are shallow and unsophisticated when it comes to selecting their leaders, and for that reason I think Christie won't get the nomination. Frankly, no one wants a pimply-faced fat man to represent their party (or country).
Rubio has the best chance of being the nominee. However, he looks and sounds like a boy (a petulant boy, in fact), and that will be a big strike against him, both in the primaries and in the general election. There is a chance, however, that a majority of Americans will see him as being youthful and vigorous (i.e., Kennedyesque), so his youth might work in his favor. John Kennedy, however, looked older than Rubio does at the same age.
On the outside chance that the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate one of the "unelectables" mentioned above, I think that person will be trounced by Hillary Clinton in the general election.
The Democrats
Bernie Sanders is a garrulous and even comical old man, and for that reason he won't get the Democratic nomination. The fact that he calls himself a socialist also kills his chances. In addition, the second debate showed that he is weak on foreign policy.
Martin O'Malley* would be a good Democratic candidate and president, but it is hard to get a handle on his character. He is, essentially, an unknown, and he doesn't give us a good reason to abandon Clinton and Sanders, both of whom are familiar to us and have characters we can relate to.
That leaves us with Hillary Clinton. Unlike in 2008, no strong candidate is running against her, so I expect her to get the nomination. Her liabilities are: her age (she is no longer pretty, which is, unfortunately, always a plus for women), her gender (a lot of people simply dislike women -- even women do), many of the smears made against her by Republicans over the years have stuck, and she is now seen as an "establishment" candidate. On the other hand, the public liked her husband when he was president, and a lot of people will be glad to have the Clintons back in the White House. Hillary Clinton's debating and political skills are second to none, and that will give her a big advantage.
Since I wrote this, the terrorist attacks in Paris have occurred, and the public is now worried about security. Consequently, both Ben Carson and Bernie Sanders have lost support because they are seen as weak on foreign policy and national security. What the public wants now is a tough, experienced man in the office, and Hillary Clinton is the toughest man in the race.
However, Clinton's loud and aggressive campaigning style has the potential to turn voters off. (It is a sad statement about our sexist society that male candidates can be loud and aggressive and not suffer for it.) In addition, the Democratic base now sees Hillary as being part of the establishment, and that will work against her. Democratic voters have shown a fondness for Quixotic candidates like Sanders in the past.
I think it's likely that Hillary Clinton will be our next president.
Update, March 8, 2016
Like all the pundits and prognosticators, I was wrong. Although Trump is getting only about 40% of the Republican vote, that is enough to put him in the lead because the other candidates are splitting the remainder of the vote. As I write this, Cruz seems to be gaining strength (although the polls show Trump winning the upcoming primaries).
My error in believing that none of the "unelectibles" could win the Republican nomination was based on past presidential elections in which Republican voters coalesced around an "establishment" candidate (George Bush Sr., George Bush Jr., Dole, McCain, Romney). However, it is also true that Republicans nominated Goldwater and Reagan, both of whom were seen as outsiders at the time. In this election, the establishment candidates were Jeb Bush and John Kasich, and they didn't have wide personal appeal (Rubio, in my view, is not an establishment candidate).
What amazes me is to see a majority of Republican voters supporting candidates who are truly horrid, and by that I mean Trump and Cruz. I had some faith in Republicans as a group to be rational, but supporting such candidates isn't rational at all. Trump is a narcissistic demagogue and a dishonest businessman, and Cruz is a narcissistic obstructionist. Neither of them has any respect for the rule of law, and both of them are bigots in various ways. But in this age of partisan extremism (mostly on the Republican side), I guess I was expecting too much.
What I didn't count on in this election was that a candidate (Trump) would come along whose demogoguery would win over the Republican party's working-class base as well as many evangelicals and conservatives. The Republican party's working-class base used to be the Democratic party's working-class base -- until Nixon's southern strategy and Ronald Reagan's charm pulled them into the Republican party. In the mean time, ultra-conservatives pushed out all the moderates from the party. That left ultra-conservatives at the top, and working-class bigots at the bottom. The ultra-conservatives haven't done enough to satisfy their working-class base, so the base has fled to Donald Trump. It appears, then, that Trump will be the Republican party's nominee, which wouldn't have happened if there were no winner-take-all Republican primaries and if the Republican party had super-delegates like the Democrats have.
So what will happen in November when Trump faces Clinton? Clinton will get the black vote, the hispanic vote and the Asian vote. The white vote will go to Trump, but not by huge margins. Most liberals will vote for Clinton, although some will sit out the election because Sanders lost. Many conservatives will sit out the election because they find Trump unpalatable, but many others will settle for him. Certainly, working class Republicans and "Reagan Democrats" will turn out for Trump. Some of the more educated voters may choose to stay home. The youth vote won't matter much because they never vote in large numbers. Some older people will be turned off to Trump, but others will see him as refreshing. Sadly, there may be enough misogynists in the populace to cause Clinton to lose, but I don't think so. The scenario that worries me the most is that Trump's spell on the country will spread, and more people will start seeing him as blunt and honest instead of the loathsome modern-day Hitler that he is. I still think that Clinton will win, but it won't be a slam-dunk.
___________________________
* Candidates marked by an asterisk have dropped out since I wrote this article.
0 comments:
Post a Comment