consultants are sandburs

Saturday, May 23, 2015

2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: Who against Hillary?

First, there is Bernie. Within the Wellstone - Warren end of the party, a great opportunity, but not viable against the juggernaut.

So, Republicans - Jeb represents his family's core values, consistent back to Prescott Bush, and might steal Florida as W did. But only if he is the one the Republican money puts forward. However, who else?

Huckabee is a joke, Scott Walker knows little but swinging an ax thoughtlessly, long term, and has surrounded himself with little Wisconsin people with limited worldviews.

Rubio is regional. Chris Christie has shown the quality of people he surrounds himself with and not only is he crony-prone, he picks inauspicious people.

Santorum will never have a major nationwide following and GOP money knows that.

The black neurosurgeon with a good demeanor nonetheless speaks, and makes himself the candidate from the Twilight Zone in doing so. Plus, where's the money?

Fiorina got sacked by the HP board, showing a history of talkiang the talk, but walking the plank. HP was a smaller pond than a global New World Order and she was not big enough a fish in that pond. Plus her political track record as a California Senate candidate did not go well for her or her party. Also, it seems uncertain who her allies are, if she has any.

That leaves Perry and Rand Paul. The best of the bunch. If you trust Ted Cruz, you might like him and spousal ties to Goldman Sachs suggests if he can do well early he'd be taken seriously by those financing the mega-propaganda costs in GOP circles (likely the same ones boosting Hillary because they know hedging transactions from their day-to-day investment lives - and what's paying into politics besides investing).

(Luckily, Fred Thompson is busy huckstering reverse mortgages on late night TV, where he always belonged, and not now monkeying around where he never belonged. Newt this go-round is quiescent, thus earning my gratitude. Bachmann and Pawlenty? In the Romney contest last time neither did as well as the guy who wrote off half the electorate from the get-go, and that's before AND after the Romney video went mainstream. Bachmann's main accomplishment during the 2012 cycle is winnowing Minnesotans down to one, in Iowa.)

Given Wall Street happiness with the known Clinton brand, and no strong candidate on the GOP side besides Jeb, so far, has any reader a comment to offer suggesting why it will not be another Clinton - Bush choice, November 2016?

If so, please leave a comment. In believing some like Scott Walker, for reasons I cannot understand, I'd particularly like to see his candidacy argued.

Ditto, if you disagree that Rand Paul and Perry represent the strongest contestants against the Bush family.

_____________UPDATE_____________
Overlooking Jindal in the above text was not deliberate. However, how many others in any such assessment might do the same? Does anyone outside of Louisiana take him seriously, with Perry having more style and panache as oil patch old boy of the South? Has Jindal made Louisiana prosper? If so, I missed reporting of such a capability.

Among the GOP options, Jeb IS the devil most of us know.

One last observation, among those seeming to have strong near-universal GOP love, Bibi is not a natural born citizen and already has a job.

That said -

There are other likely early exit primary contestants. Eric Ferguson here, noted two he viewed that way, and I can agree about one of them:

Ohio Gov. John Kasich had a fake Lincoln quote too good to check out. This sounded like mid-19th century English to Kasich? “You cannot build a little guy up by tearing a big guy down.” Maybe “guy” was used in the slang way we use it now and I just don’t know that, but I do know one thing: one of the signs of a fake quote is the use of anachronistic language. If a quote of a famous person sounds not merely convenient for a speaker’s point, but doesn’t quite sound like something they would have said back then, that doesn’t mean the quote is fake, but it sure screams for verification. Unless, you know, you’re John Kasich. Or as was said by Kasich back when he was just another microphone hog in the US House, “Someone willing to just make up crap is thinking of running for president, really?” Actually, he never said that, I’m reasonably sure, because I just made it up. But wouldn’t it be neat if he did say it? Therefore…

Rick Perry said unemployment statistics are “doctored”. Dave Wiegel didn’t mention the broader context of Perry’s remark, “It’s been massaged, it’s been doctored,” but what context could there be in which that remark doesn’t sound nuts other than “Only a grossly ignorant or delusional person could seriously say…”? Of course, this is hardly the first time Republicans have casually accused the BLS is faking the numbers to help Obama. So I guess Perry is just an echo rather than a full tin foil hat. Funny how they never release great numbers before an election when it might actually do Democrats some good. I’ll just add that if you think the BLS could somehow fake the unemployment numbers, and all of the many people who work on compiling them would go along with this without a slip up, you might just be ready to believe anything, such as “Rick Perry really knows what he’s talking about.”

[links in original] Kasich is a long shot, and it is Perry where I disagree. Yet he could be propped up straw man style early, by the press, as during Romney 2012 times.

If not suffering that this 2016 cycle, Perry might be viewed seriously, simply for being more alive and attractive a human than Jeb; i.e., more akin to "the W style" than Jeb. It might come down to who Perry's backers are and how they place among Republican movers and shakers.

For example: Has Perry friendships at Goldman Sachs the way Ted Cruz does? Both are Texans. In the who I'd rather sit next to at a bar evaluation, Perry or Cruz, who do you see having traction in that sense? I would say Perry. Throw in Jindal in that evaluation, and I still would say Perry. (At a guess either of the three would be friendly enough, while leaving you with the tab.)

Whether any such "bar-friendly litmus test" matters with those who have the capability and will to fund the GOP is questionable, especially given the clear lack of individual GOP grassroots willingness to cut a check that the Dems have going for them.

Dem grassroots people will even cut a check for Hillary of the immense Clinton fortune from being in politics history. When the time comes Dem grassroots contribute. Even those favoring Feingold, Sanders and Warren will get in line in November, and get out the cneckbooks before that.

Wall Street bets money both ways so that they buy a later seat at tables that matter, hence, their funding largely cancels out.

Readers, explain if I am wrong in thinking the GOP rank-and-file Tea Party people will only cut checks for the likes of Michele Bachmann as a token gesture against those unknown uber-wealthy slush-funders of Norm's Uber-PAC.

As with the money turning its back on Bills, and then the Bills people being lukewarm over Norm's folks trotting out McFadden. Etc.

It appears that many now in the GOP grassroot trenches are distrustful of Norm and what he represents. Or am I wrong? Is there universal liking across the GOP spectrum, for Norm, for Vin, or for Timmy, and their passage through the revolving door to the fiscal Nirvana of lobbying their former elective haunts, in exchange for money - while wanting to call the shots as surrogate public-faces for those paying to call the shots?

___________FURTHER UPDATE____________
An uncertainty is what after the Dem primary Sanders will do. He could run as an independent, he could endorse Hillary, or he could be supportive beyond formal endorsement. Hillary can quietly raise money during the GOP dust-up, not saying much beyond platitudes allowing wiggle room speeches from primary to election day, depending on what the Republicans say and do and how the polls suggest policy emphasis and underemphasis tactics.

We likely will see a vague pre-primary Hillary - always with "a vision and trust in the middle class." After the primaries there will be much spending, much mud slinging by PAC money outside of campaign direct ownership, and polling will set strategy. From primary to election day there will be summer activities and later televised football to avoid boredom.

No comments: