Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Todd]

Could be worse. He could have a snowball's chance for instance.

His chances are not that good.  The only way he has that much of a chance is if Republicans decide they definitely want to lose the general election.

[Gurn Blanston]

His chances are not that good.  The only way he has that much of a chance is if Republicans decide they definitely want to lose the general election.

I think they made that choice already...

[Pat B]

At a gubernatorial level, Shrub was very good. He didn't have Cheney driving his brain for him.

I missed this when you posted it but I think it's worth a post to agree. And not just Cheney, but Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Poindexter (!!!)... His governorship wasn't like that.

[Gurn Blanston]

I missed this when you posted it but I think it's worth a post to agree. And not just Cheney, but Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Poindexter (!!!)... His governorship wasn't like that.

Exactly. Not sure what happened there, it seems he sold his soul to the devil. Well, clearly he did, now I examine Cheyney in a good light.    

[(poco) Sforzando]

His chances are not that good.

I wouldn't be so sure. He won Iowa in 2012 and came in second to Romney.

[Ken B]

I missed this when you posted it but I think it's worth a post to agree. And not just Cheney, but Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Poindexter (!!!)... His governorship wasn't like that.

First let me say I am more favorable to Bush than most here. But I rather agree with this. I recall in 2000 a friend telling me Bush seemed like a guy with no big ideas, just a decent enough guy who'd be a caretaker do-little president. That I agreed was why he was my preference! That was what I wanted! Didn't get it.

[Gurn Blanston]

First let me say I am more favorable to Bush than most here. But I rather agree with this. I recall in 2000 a friend telling me Bush seemed like a guy with no big ideas, just a decent enough guy who'd be a caretaker do-little president. That I agreed was why he was my preference! That was what I wanted! Didn't get it.

That seems like a fair assessment. However, he, like all of us, was overtaken by unforeseen circumstances and thus his caretakership went a little crazy. Enter; Darth Cheney! (cue the d minor T & F)...

I met George a couple of times back then, once when we were at a ball game in Arlington when he owned the Rangers, and then, in 1999, when he came to give my workplace an award for which I was the designated recipient. Both times he seemed like he would be great to hang out with and have a beer or three...   Maybe not presidential, but cool.

[Ken B]

That seems like a fair assessment. However, he, like all of us, was overtaken by unforeseen circumstances and thus his caretakership went a little crazy. Enter; Darth Cheney! (cue the d minor T & F)...

I met George a couple of times back then, once when we were at a ball game in Arlington when he owned the Rangers, and then, in 1999, when he came to give my workplace an award for which I was the designated recipient. Both times he seemed like he would be great to hang out with and have a beer or three...   Maybe not presidential, but cool.

Better than Gore though.  "Dark forces." 
Bush was the luckiest politician of his generation! I think he could have been beaten in 2004 had the dems picked a better candidate. I thought placid, dull Dick Gephardt would have won soundly. Any moderate, even Biden.

[Pat B]

That seems like a fair assessment. However, he, like all of us, was overtaken by unforeseen circumstances and thus his caretakership went a little crazy. Enter; Darth Cheney! (cue the d minor T & F)...

"Overtaken by unforeseen circumstances?" I think that's an extremely generous characterization. Some of those advisors never had any intention of him being a "caretaker" president, despite the image he had cultivated as governor.

One of them (Wolfowitz, the one who might be even crazier than Cheney) is now on Jeb's foreign policy team.

I met George a couple of times back then, once when we were at a ball game in Arlington when he owned the Rangers, and then, in 1999, when he came to give my workplace an award for which I was the designated recipient. Both times he seemed like he would be great to hang out with and have a beer or three...   Maybe not presidential, but cool.

Yes, I have generally heard that he is very charming in person (or was when he was governor).

[Pat B]

Better than Gore though.  "Dark forces." 
Bush was the luckiest politician of his generation! I think he could have been beaten in 2004 had the dems picked a better candidate. I thought placid, dull Dick Gephardt would have won soundly. Any moderate, even Biden.

I don't know about that. Bush's presidential campaigns (including the 2000 primary against McCain) were ruthless, and the fear machine was still running strong in 2004. Kerry made a blunder with "for it before I was against it," a shockingly dumb way to describe two votes on, IIRC, two different versions of a bill, and the Republicans then branded him a "flip flopper." (And now, 11 years later, candidates are afraid to admit that they ever changed their mind on anything, lest they too be labelled "flip floppers.") Biden would have said something dumb -- I imagine we can agree on that -- and the Bush campaign would have pounced on that too.

BTW my current hunch is that Cruz will be the nominee this year.

[Ken B]

I don't know about that. Bush's presidential campaigns (including the 2000 primary against McCain) were ruthless, and the fear machine was still running strong in 2004. Kerry made a blunder with "for it before I was against it," a shockingly dumb way to describe two votes on, IIRC, two different versions of a bill, and the Republicans then branded him a "flip flopper." (And now, 11 years later, candidates are afraid to admit that they ever changed their mind on anything, lest they too be labelled "flip floppers.") Biden would have said something dumb -- I imagine we can agree on that -- and the Bush campaign would have pounced on that too.

BTW my current hunch is that Cruz will be the nominee this year.

My hunch (and hope) is that it is Scott Walker.

Btw, the reason I woukd have voted for anyone over Kerry, and I mean Palin for rxample, is that I feared his approach in Iraq and to militant Islam in general would have led to something like Isis. That's why I prefered McCain and woukd have even prefered Palin to Obama  too. I told friends in 2008 this is a blunder that could in the long run cost tens of thousands or even millions of lives. (Bill Clinton would have got it right.)

[San Antone]

I don't think there's anything *wrong* with Rick Santorum; an okay guy but for whatever reason doesn't have the right stuff to even get the nomination.  I think the Reps have three viable candidates, but which none have officially announced, yet: Scott Walker; Chris Christie and Jeb Bush.

Of these, I don't know enough about Walker; but know too much about Bush and am currently most interested in Christie.

[mc ukrneal]

A blast from the past: George Pataki Launches 2016 Bid

[San Antone]

A blast from the past: George Pataki Launches 2016 Bid

I saw that right after I had posted.  I like what he said in his announcement video.  Be interesting to see how his campaign goes; certainly qualified; charisma factor questionable.

[Gurn Blanston]

I saw that right after I had posted.  I like what he said in his announcement video.  Be interesting to see how his campaign goes; certainly qualified; charisma factor questionable.

I expect he is too moderate to appeal to 'the Base'. IOW, he would be a good candidate, but won't have a chance during the wingnut portion of the program.   

[mc ukrneal]

I expect he is too moderate to appeal to 'the Base'. IOW, he would be a good candidate, but won't have a chance during the wingnut portion of the program.   

He has three strikes against him from the GOP/conservative base (at least based on past history - no idea if his views are different now): pro-gay rights, pro-environment, and pro-gun control (including signed legislation). There may be a fourth on health care, but I don't remember any more all the details.  On the other hand, pro-lower taxes. REPthat won in DEM state, and considered strong on crime. That's in a nutshell.

[Gurn Blanston]

He has three strikes against him from the GOP/conservative base (at least based on past history - no idea if his views are different now): pro-gay rights, pro-environment, and pro-gun control (including signed legislation). There may be a fourth on health care, but I don't remember any more all the details.  On the other hand, pro-lower taxes. REP that won in DEM state, and considered strong on crime. That's in a nutshell.

Yup, just what I meant; moderate. I like what he did in NY (he was governor during 9/11), but generally speaking, New Yorkers are realists with an interest in getting stuff done. That would never fly with the National Party machine.  They would rather make political points than actually govern. 

[Todd]

hat would never fly with the National Party machine.  They would rather make political points than actually govern.

I'm not so sure.  First, Romney managed to get the nomination in 2012, and it's fair and accurate to say that he is not on the far right of the party, so it can be done.  It usually is done.  Second, and more important, the RNC has limited the number of primary debates this cycle to avoid the long slugfest from last time around.  The Republicans want a less damaged candidate when the general election rolls around. 

If Pataki were better known and younger and a bit more conservative he'd stand a better chance.  I wonder if he's angling for a cabinet position or perhaps a stint at St James or something.

It's still early, of course, but it looks like Bush III, Rubio, and Walker are the frontrunners.  I can stomach two of those.

[Gurn Blanston]

I'm not so sure.  First, Romney managed to get the nomination in 2012, and it's fair and accurate to say that he is not on the far right of the party, so it can be done.  It usually is done.  Second, and more important, the RNC has limited the number of primary debates this cycle to avoid the long slugfest from last time around.  The Republicans want a less damaged candidate when the general election rolls around. 

If Pataki were better known and younger and a bit more conservative he'd stand a better chance.  I wonder if he's angling for a cabinet position or perhaps a stint at St James or something.

It's still early, of course, but it looks like Bush III, Rubio, and Walker are the frontrunners.  I can stomach two of those.

It seemed to me as though they finally settled on Romney more as the 'last man standing' after they effectively slaughtered each other off. Obama didn't really need to do a lot to win.

I like Christie, but I doubt he will survive the cull, his straight talking style will undoubtedly screw him up sooner rather than later. Plus, he actually spoke to Obama once, after the Superstorm Sandy thing, and he didn't knock him down and jump on him (surely that would have been fatal) or turn around and immediately stab him in the back, so he burned some major bridges with the Party Faithful already.

Hilary appears to be Non-Stick, so if the GOP want to win this time, they better damn well get their shit in a pile. Soon. Don't forget this about Santorum; he will be first in line to institute Evangelical Sharia Law when the proposition gets raised. Other political considerations are secondary for him.

[Todd]

I like Christie, but I doubt he will survive the cull, his straight talking style will undoubtedly screw him up sooner rather than later.

I like Christie - as a governor.  His mouth has gotten him in trouble, and will continue to do so.  His schtick grows tiresome over time, and while I know he acts differently when situations warrant, he would be the chief diplomat of the USA, and I'm not convinced he wouldn't revert to his standard approach when the cameras are rolling even in a more delicate situation.  He just can't win it.

I think you can rest easy about Santorum.  As was pointed out earlier, he won Iowa in 2012 and was the next to last candidate for the Republicans, and he will have his sugar daddy's help again, but he's old news.  Cruz is on the scene now to steal the crazy vote.

It looks like John Kasich will announce later this summer.  He's got the right experience - Congressional budget and national security experience and a governorship - is not prone to saying too many crazy things, and is pragmatic.  I could live without the faith-based talk, but that's comparatively minor.  Alas, he's a RINO to many, he doesn't have great name recognition, and I don't know if he can raise the necessary money.  I guess I could give money to his campaign, but I am principled, and I will not violate my personal lifetime ban on political contributions.