consultants are sandburs

Friday, May 01, 2015

An interesting conjecture, but can you take it to the bank?

GOP blogging in CD6 tends toward conservative vs establishment Republicanism - to whatever extent there is any real difference.

That is so, at least in rhetoric; e.g., here (titled, "Jeb, the survivor? I think not," and here, ("Jeb Bush's Iowa Problem"); the former item being current (dated the eve of May Day), with a reference back to the latter (Feb. 1, 2015) item; the current item stating:

Romney survived because his competition wasn’t competitive. Jeb’s competition isn’t just competitive. There’s a question lingering about how competitive Jeb is. There’s no question about whether Jeb’s got the fundraising network. There’s tons of doubt whether he can win over conservative voters.

One of the rare things that Vice President Biden got right was when he said that “a leader without any followers is just a guy out for a walk.” I wouldn’t say that Jeb doesn’t have any followers. I won’t hesitate, though, is saying that his support is tepid considering how much money he’s raised and his name recognition advantage. He should be blowing his competition out of the water. The fact that he isn’t speaks volumes.

[...] Bush can’t win the nomination by surviving because Walker and Rubio aren’t trendy flavor-of-the-month types. They have legitimate staying power because they’re appealing candidates.

Seeing Walker and Rubio as "appealing candidates" is the viewpoint of last cycle's staunchest Gingrich supporter (until it was clear Romney and not Gingrich, would carry the banner to defeat). So add that into your evaluation of Gary's crystal ball this cycle.

Walker? Wait and see, but readers believing Walker will be the GOP candidate, and will win to become President, please leave a comment to the post or send an email on what odds you currently are offering and how much you'd bet on a Walker presidency being the Nov. 2016 general election outcome.

Readers are urged to not confuse this post with the one right after it, intending to submit comments such as, "Walker has a better chance than Sanders."

Nobody doubts that.

Bernie would be more appealing to progressives than Hillary, but Hillary will be the general election Democrats' candidate. Walker may be more appealing to some sad souls on the GOP side of things compared to Jeb, but Jeb will be the Republican-ALEC candidate.

And between Hillary and Jeb there is little policy difference. Both carry the banner of the billionaires, unlike Rand Paul, Santorum (yes, him again), or Walker -- or Bernie.

__________FURTHER UPDATE_________
Another topic for which reader responses are solicited: Do you intend to watch any of the presidential debates, or is your mind already made up?

My guess is there are a lot of folks out there, registered voters who will vote, who say they are undecided when their minds are 95% decided and they only await the 5% chance of game-changer news changing their minds. That belief, coupled with the awfulness of that last cycle's interminable run of super-boring GOP Romney-and-the-dwarfs "debate" presentations, suggests the Republicans better find a better formula than staging a repeat, this time being Jeb-and-the-dwarfs, not Mitt. Different lead man, different actual dwarfs, yet expect the same contest parameters.

Final topic reader comment might aid: Are political dynasty families a good thing, and should we expect more or less of it after 2016? (And that's writing off 2016 as dynastic beyond doubt. See if I am wrong.)

No comments: