Doug:
Here we are in November of 2015, and the GOP Presidential race is still a full field. Only Scott Walker and Rick Perry have officially dropped out. Who do you think is next to abandon ship? Who do you think will win the nomination?
David:
They are all apparently banking on the "Santorum Strategy" from the last election. It was an even more crowded field at that time, but Rick Santorum, who was barely on the map, hung on to win in the early primary states and gain momentum to outlast some of the others. Unfortunately for most of the candidates, too many are focused only on Iowa or only on New Hampshire. We may see everyone who is still competing stay until the first 2 primaries / caucuses, and then there will be a huge massacre of campaign deaths.
Doug:
Santorum had a strategy? Who knew! My prediction is that Trump and Carson will eliminate each other in a fiery ball of flames. Well, maybe not fire, but, even though they have positions #1 and #2, I don't see that they can last. Neither has any political experience, and it shows. They seem to have similar messages, only that Trump yells it, and Carson says it softly with his eyes shut. I think they are both in it for the book sales, and other future money-making deals.
After those two (Trump and Carson) have been neutralized, then we'll see a rise of candidates with at least some experience, including Bush, Rubio, and Paul (if he survives). My bet is on Rubio or Bush to make it out of the GOP primaries as the candidate for the GOP.
David:
I'm surprised Trump has lasted this long. When he talks in interviews, he certainly resonates with the ideals of a great many folks, but as we saw in the last debate (which was light on rhetoric, and heavy on specifics), he stumbles and seems to have many inconsistencies.
From my experiences in politics, there is something to be said for a good politician. That may seem to be an oxymoron, but it's true.
Doug:
In what world is it good to have a politician that is bad at their job? No, we all want good politicians.
David:
Not true. Look at the polls. A sizeable number of Americans are looking for a president who has no political experience at all. "Politician" has become a bad word, and not without some reason.
Doug:
I think I see the problem: Democrats define "politician" as someone who runs for office, sometimes wins, and then works in government to serve the people. Republicans ("a sizeable number of Americans") define "politician" as someone who has no experience being a politician, but now wants the job. After they get the job, they are a politician---unless they don't do anything. Then they are a great politician.
David:
Right....Democrats are wise and good. Republicans are stupid and bad. Nice. You must be paying close attention to President Obama's speeches, because that's exactly what he says. I can't believe that folks would want someone who doesn't promise more of the same. Interestingly, polls among Democrats show some support for Trump as well, for specific issues:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-donald-trump-makes-sense-to-a-lot-of-voters--even-some-democrats/2015/08/15/cee648f0-42bf-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html
Finding a way to get someone who disagrees with you to come along on a legislative bill takes skill and persuasion, and some wheeling and dealing. Trump might actually be good at this, but it is really all he offers. But it is something, and may break the gridlock of Washington. But, since I believe smaller government is best, gridlock isn't always a bad thing...
Doug:
If you want a smaller government, nominate someone who runs on making government smaller, not someone who makes a gridlock. Wheeling and dealing is not enough to be President. You have to have good ideas, and be a leader.
David:
The biggest problem I have with Trump, is he's spent decades building his "brand". I think he believes that "what's good for Trump, is good for America". With that in mind, I see him acting in a way that will not damage his prospects for Trump, incorporated, in the future. That is likely not what is best for America. It could be dangerous.
Doug:
Amen, brother! I've been waiting to say that.
David:
Many of the other candidates have differing views on tax reforms, immigration reforms, and foreign policy, but even if one's views are right, if you can't get the other side to join you, at least partly, your efforts will fail. Several of the candidates appear to have the ability to work the politics to get results. Others are just a bit too polarized to do that easily.
Doug:
So, let's hear some predictions! Jindal just announced that he is dropping out, so don't put your money there.
David:
I have to agree with your analysis. Bush has money, and in politics, money is everything. You need cash to run commercials and send out mailers, and the Bush camp has an extensive machine, much like the Clintons. But, he's a terrible candidate. He has the Bush name, which works against him, and he's about as appealing as warm lemonade on a hot day. It's OK, but not what you really want. And I think he matches up poorly with Hillary. In a Bush vs. Clinton matchup, it becomes a dynasty cage match, and the Bush name (and the fact he isn't a woman) does him in. But I expect him to be around for the long haul.
Paul is right about a lot of issues, but doesn't present his argument well. He has not really been able to grasp the mantle from his father. The last debate allowed him to highlight some positions, but I don't think he'll win any primary states, and will fade shortly after the first few voting states.
Huckabee and Cruz may surprise you in the Iowa Caucuses and even New Hampshire. Cruz has some staying power, and every debate provides the former college debate champion some more room to shine. Huckabee is likely a one-win-and-out campaign.
Doug:
I wouldn't be surprised at that, and would probably predict the same. Santorum did very well last time around in those crazy, never-pick-a-president states.
David:
Rubio is where I'd put my chips right now. He's well spoken, and presents a clear break from the past (Clinton or Sanders) and has consistently made his message about the future. There are many who would just like to vote for the first woman (Clinton), but would also vote for the first Hispanic president. He has a mastery of foreign policy to neutralize Hillary's experience. I'd be happier if he said he'd cut the size of Government. Maybe he can tag-team with Fiorina as his VP pick. She knows how to cut waste.
Doug:
My prediction: you aren't going to ever hear about Carly Fiorina again after these debates. She is worse than Sarah Palin as a candidate.
David:
But let's hear about the Democrats. Hillary is clearly the nominee, unless something like an FBI indictment ruins the day! Or, would you predict that most voters would just look the other way and vote for her anyway?
Doug:
Well, you have Clinton explained-away: either she loses, or people have to vote for her because ... they have no choice? Actually, contrary to your talking points, a lot of people like Clinton's views. She doesn't have the charisma her husband has, but she is thoughtful, has experience, and can win. Sanders has forced her to be a bit more Progressive. That was his role.
I predict Clinton will win the nomination.
David:
Well, this certainly is awkward. We seem to be in complete agreement through this blog. Yikes! We need to disagree about something, don't we?
Oh, wait. You probably predict Hillary will be our next president, right? Ha!
Doug:
I don't know. I think it will be Clinton, if the Republican nominee isn't someone at least somewhat palatable to the left. If I were a praying man, I'd ask god to please support Trump. Or bring back Walker or Jindal. Or support Cruz. Or Carson! Maybe I don't need to pray; maybe the Republicans can make Clinton our next President all by themselves.
David:
If you're a statistics guy, a Republican will be the next president. However, the presidential race may influence the senate seats that are up for re-election, so we could still end up with a divided government.
This primary season is unlike anything we've seen in a long time, if ever. And on that, I think we both agree.
All of this agreement. Good grief! Maybe the holiday season is mellowing us a bit...
Happy Thanksgiving!
Here we are in November of 2015, and the GOP Presidential race is still a full field. Only Scott Walker and Rick Perry have officially dropped out. Who do you think is next to abandon ship? Who do you think will win the nomination?
David:
They are all apparently banking on the "Santorum Strategy" from the last election. It was an even more crowded field at that time, but Rick Santorum, who was barely on the map, hung on to win in the early primary states and gain momentum to outlast some of the others. Unfortunately for most of the candidates, too many are focused only on Iowa or only on New Hampshire. We may see everyone who is still competing stay until the first 2 primaries / caucuses, and then there will be a huge massacre of campaign deaths.
Doug:
Santorum had a strategy? Who knew! My prediction is that Trump and Carson will eliminate each other in a fiery ball of flames. Well, maybe not fire, but, even though they have positions #1 and #2, I don't see that they can last. Neither has any political experience, and it shows. They seem to have similar messages, only that Trump yells it, and Carson says it softly with his eyes shut. I think they are both in it for the book sales, and other future money-making deals.
After those two (Trump and Carson) have been neutralized, then we'll see a rise of candidates with at least some experience, including Bush, Rubio, and Paul (if he survives). My bet is on Rubio or Bush to make it out of the GOP primaries as the candidate for the GOP.
David:
I'm surprised Trump has lasted this long. When he talks in interviews, he certainly resonates with the ideals of a great many folks, but as we saw in the last debate (which was light on rhetoric, and heavy on specifics), he stumbles and seems to have many inconsistencies.
From my experiences in politics, there is something to be said for a good politician. That may seem to be an oxymoron, but it's true.
Doug:
In what world is it good to have a politician that is bad at their job? No, we all want good politicians.
David:
Not true. Look at the polls. A sizeable number of Americans are looking for a president who has no political experience at all. "Politician" has become a bad word, and not without some reason.
Doug:
I think I see the problem: Democrats define "politician" as someone who runs for office, sometimes wins, and then works in government to serve the people. Republicans ("a sizeable number of Americans") define "politician" as someone who has no experience being a politician, but now wants the job. After they get the job, they are a politician---unless they don't do anything. Then they are a great politician.
David:
Right....Democrats are wise and good. Republicans are stupid and bad. Nice. You must be paying close attention to President Obama's speeches, because that's exactly what he says. I can't believe that folks would want someone who doesn't promise more of the same. Interestingly, polls among Democrats show some support for Trump as well, for specific issues:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-donald-trump-makes-sense-to-a-lot-of-voters--even-some-democrats/2015/08/15/cee648f0-42bf-11e5-8ab4-c73967a143d3_story.html
Finding a way to get someone who disagrees with you to come along on a legislative bill takes skill and persuasion, and some wheeling and dealing. Trump might actually be good at this, but it is really all he offers. But it is something, and may break the gridlock of Washington. But, since I believe smaller government is best, gridlock isn't always a bad thing...
Doug:
If you want a smaller government, nominate someone who runs on making government smaller, not someone who makes a gridlock. Wheeling and dealing is not enough to be President. You have to have good ideas, and be a leader.
David:
The biggest problem I have with Trump, is he's spent decades building his "brand". I think he believes that "what's good for Trump, is good for America". With that in mind, I see him acting in a way that will not damage his prospects for Trump, incorporated, in the future. That is likely not what is best for America. It could be dangerous.
Doug:
Amen, brother! I've been waiting to say that.
David:
Many of the other candidates have differing views on tax reforms, immigration reforms, and foreign policy, but even if one's views are right, if you can't get the other side to join you, at least partly, your efforts will fail. Several of the candidates appear to have the ability to work the politics to get results. Others are just a bit too polarized to do that easily.
Doug:
So, let's hear some predictions! Jindal just announced that he is dropping out, so don't put your money there.
David:
I have to agree with your analysis. Bush has money, and in politics, money is everything. You need cash to run commercials and send out mailers, and the Bush camp has an extensive machine, much like the Clintons. But, he's a terrible candidate. He has the Bush name, which works against him, and he's about as appealing as warm lemonade on a hot day. It's OK, but not what you really want. And I think he matches up poorly with Hillary. In a Bush vs. Clinton matchup, it becomes a dynasty cage match, and the Bush name (and the fact he isn't a woman) does him in. But I expect him to be around for the long haul.
Paul is right about a lot of issues, but doesn't present his argument well. He has not really been able to grasp the mantle from his father. The last debate allowed him to highlight some positions, but I don't think he'll win any primary states, and will fade shortly after the first few voting states.
Huckabee and Cruz may surprise you in the Iowa Caucuses and even New Hampshire. Cruz has some staying power, and every debate provides the former college debate champion some more room to shine. Huckabee is likely a one-win-and-out campaign.
Doug:
I wouldn't be surprised at that, and would probably predict the same. Santorum did very well last time around in those crazy, never-pick-a-president states.
David:
Rubio is where I'd put my chips right now. He's well spoken, and presents a clear break from the past (Clinton or Sanders) and has consistently made his message about the future. There are many who would just like to vote for the first woman (Clinton), but would also vote for the first Hispanic president. He has a mastery of foreign policy to neutralize Hillary's experience. I'd be happier if he said he'd cut the size of Government. Maybe he can tag-team with Fiorina as his VP pick. She knows how to cut waste.
Doug:
My prediction: you aren't going to ever hear about Carly Fiorina again after these debates. She is worse than Sarah Palin as a candidate.
David:
But let's hear about the Democrats. Hillary is clearly the nominee, unless something like an FBI indictment ruins the day! Or, would you predict that most voters would just look the other way and vote for her anyway?
Doug:
Well, you have Clinton explained-away: either she loses, or people have to vote for her because ... they have no choice? Actually, contrary to your talking points, a lot of people like Clinton's views. She doesn't have the charisma her husband has, but she is thoughtful, has experience, and can win. Sanders has forced her to be a bit more Progressive. That was his role.
I predict Clinton will win the nomination.
David:
Well, this certainly is awkward. We seem to be in complete agreement through this blog. Yikes! We need to disagree about something, don't we?
Oh, wait. You probably predict Hillary will be our next president, right? Ha!
Doug:
I don't know. I think it will be Clinton, if the Republican nominee isn't someone at least somewhat palatable to the left. If I were a praying man, I'd ask god to please support Trump. Or bring back Walker or Jindal. Or support Cruz. Or Carson! Maybe I don't need to pray; maybe the Republicans can make Clinton our next President all by themselves.
David:
If you're a statistics guy, a Republican will be the next president. However, the presidential race may influence the senate seats that are up for re-election, so we could still end up with a divided government.
This primary season is unlike anything we've seen in a long time, if ever. And on that, I think we both agree.
All of this agreement. Good grief! Maybe the holiday season is mellowing us a bit...
Happy Thanksgiving!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!