Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

When the moderator asked the candidates which woman they would like to see on the $10 bill, the male candidates offered suggestions including Rosa Parks, the choice of Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ted Cruz (Tex.), and Mother Teresa, the pick of Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Fiorina said she wouldn't make any changes.

"Honestly, it's a gesture. I don't think it helps to change our history," she said. "What I would think is that we ought to recognize that women are not a special interest group. Women are the majority of this nation."

Nicely done, and as a pointedly visible minority on the stage.  Good theatre.

[Brian]

Fiorina came off rather well.  She did her homework.  I could not vote for her, but the same goes for most of the people on the stage.

That's how I feel. Fiorina seemed like the most professional, polished candidate onstage - more so than "she's a beautiful woman" Trump, more so than "please hold while I think of a comeback" Bush, more so than "yeah, if somebody else has a good idea, I'm cool with that" Carson. (Although I think accepting other people's cool ideas is a hugely underrated quality in a candidate.) Rand Paul was also surprisingly substantive, but his Constitution answer was a hilarious dork-out moment where he forgot what the point was and just lectured on history.

The big losers, for me: Scott Walker, who basically did nothing at all, and Ted Cruz, who sounded like the stupid clown he is.

[Karl Henning]

(Although I think accepting other people's cool ideas is a hugely underrated quality in a candidate.)

Because that is an important component of actual governance:  acknowledges the contributions of others.

[Karl Henning]

(Disclosure: left-wing commentator.)

What was hinted at tonight is that as the Trump phenomenon is normalized, it will become less interesting.

[Ken B]

Ted Cruz, who sounded like the stupid clown he is.

Double. Alan Dershowitz called Cruz the most brilliant student he's ever had. People can disagree with Brian and not be stupid I think.

[Brahmsian]

As a foreigner, I'm very interested in your thoughts on who you believe the top 2 or 3 candidates from each party are (most likely), at this point?  Thanks. 

[Ken B]

As a foreigner, I'm very interested in your thoughts on who you believe the top 2 or 3 candidates from each party are (most likely), at this point?  Thanks. 

I'm Canadian too. I still think Trump will fade. The most interesting candidates to me -- and I have not done a deep dive just noted who seems to turn me off least -- are
Walker, Kasich, Rubio, Fiorina, Christie, Bush. Walker seems to be fading, and Christie looks to have no chance. I cannot see another Bush on the ticket. There are things I like about Paul. I'm glad to have his view point in the senate, since ideas need to be heard. He's my last choice in the field.

The dem who interests me most is Webb, who gets no traction. The one who appeals least is O'Malley. Bernie's ideas are crazy -- his current promises amount to 18 trillion I read -- but he's more honest than Hillary.

[Karl Henning]

As a foreigner, I'm very interested in your thoughts on who you believe the top 2 or 3 candidates from each party are (most likely), at this point?  Thanks. 

The circus has only begun, so "at this point" is not indicative of November 2016 . . . against all better judgment, Trump remains a serious candidate, for now, certainly;  Carson and Kasich may prove viable longer-term.

Time has yet to show if Hilary can pull her campaign out of its current tailspin;  she is helped mostly by the great height at which her beleaguered craft began.  Is Sanders a viable alternative?  I view his future career with interest.

[Karl Henning]

So why don't I think Fiorina viable longer-term?  Well, she may prove to be, of course.  My back-of-the-envelope analysis today is that she is a nascent flavor du jour, and mostly the "anti-Trump" of the hour.  I think it a very good thing that she is part of the process, generally;  offhand, I shouldn't mind if she wound up the eventual nominee.

I don't see the Christie campaign as having legs, at least not to take him into the White House.  I do see him as staying through a fair amount of the primaries.

[Ken B]

So why don't I think Fiorina viable longer-term?  Well, she may prove to be, of course.  My back-of-the-envelope analysis today is that she is a nascent flavor du jour, and mostly the "anti-Trump" of the hour.  I think it a very good thing that she is part of the process, generally;  offhand, I shouldn't mind if she wound up the eventual nominee.

I don't see the Christie campaign as having legs, at least not to take him into the White House.  I do see him as staying through a fair amount of the primaries.

She's climbed the most of the seemingly plausible candidates. I rather like her style, which is tough without being boorish, and confident without being a braggart. Her record seems a bit mixed (I don't know for sure, just see different claims) but it is unsullied by time in office. In many ways that's an appealing thing.

[Ken B]

The predictive markets are still big on Bush, but also show some respect for Rubio and Fiorina.
http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016RepNomination

[Karl Henning]

The predictive markets are still big on Bush [...]

They will be slow to downgrade either the Bush or Clinton brand.

[Ken B]

They will be slow to downgrade either the Bush or Clinton brand.

I agree. But sometimes they are smarter than we are.
Rubio looks underpriced to me.

[Brahmsian]

Thanks for the feedback, Ken and Karl! 

[Karl Henning]

A significant sub-population of El Tupé's present "support" are jokester, borderline nihilists who are just enjoying the unseemly spectacle;  but the serious side of his proposed constituency is fueled by righteous disgust for the politician class.

Even if these are ultimately denied a Trump candidacy, they are not going to do either a Clinton or a Bush any favors at the ballot box.

[Karl Henning]

On Facebook I recently unfriended a chap, not because he had done me any great discourtesy (he has not, lately) but because he has not merely drunk the Hillary Kool-Ade--that seemed to have been his amniotic fluid.  He has the zealot's conviction that Hillary and Hillary Alone can serve the Democratic Party next November.  That of itself is no great offense, but even our limited history on Facebook has taught me that he will not respond civilly to dissent, so the easiest thing from my end was to exise his pro-Hillary screeds from my feed.  I have a limited appetite for the My Mind Is Made Up Don't Confuse Me With Potentially Inconvenient Facts crowd . . . .

[Todd]

So why don't I think Fiorina viable longer-term?

Because she's not.  She'd be a potentially good choice for VP to counter Hillary and the inevitable charges of a GOP sexism/War on Women if Hillary gets the nod, though it's hard to see what electoral advantage she would bring.  (I get it, outsiders are popular right now, but they are always popular early on; winning needs votes, and that needs political support and a base.)  She'd be better at Commerce or Labor or as USTR, or someplace where she follows orders rather than giving them.  She may serve a purpose in attacking Trump more, because as she showed last night, she has some attacks ("I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.") that he cannot refute without looking worse.  He may pretend not to care, or he may not care, but it can hurt him. 

A Kasich/Rubio ticket could be a good one, but both of them need to up their games.  Kasich looked and sounded the same as before.  He's by far the most experienced Republican running, but that means little to nothing.  Fundraising reports come out next month, so that should weed the field a bit.

[Karl Henning]

Because she's not.  She'd be a potentially good choice for VP to counter Hillary and the inevitable charges of a GOP sexism/War on Women if Hillary gets the nod, though it's hard to see what electoral advantage she would bring.  (I get it, outsiders are popular right now, but they are always popular early on; winning needs votes, and that needs political support and a base.)  She'd be better at Commerce or Labor or as USTR, or someplace where she follows orders rather than giving them.  She may serve a purpose in attacking Trump more, because as she showed last night, she has some attacks ("I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.”) that he cannot refute without looking worse.  He may pretend not to care, or he may not care, but it can hurt him. 

A Kasich/Rubio ticket could be a good one, but both of them need to up their games.  Kasich looked and sounded the same as before.  He's by far the most experienced Republican running, but that means little to nothing.  Fundraising reports come out next month, so that should weed the field a bit.

Good analysis, I thnk.

[Karl Henning]

John Kasich continued to play the adult in the room, arguing that the next president should see if the Iran deal can work rather than immediately tearing it up and losing our allies on the issue. He also pointed out that it makes no strategic sense for Republicans to shut down the government over Planned Parenthood funding. He stressed unity and working together. As ever, his candidacy rests on impressing moderates in New Hampshire.

Scott Walker made no rhetorically or substantively cogent points. The others on the big stage also didn't do enough to distinguish themselves.

Finally, Lindsey Graham deserves a shoutout for explicitly promising to work with Democrats. He is no rhetorical craftsman, and he will probably never make it out of the JV debate. He will certainly never be president. But in a more reasonable Republican Party, his sentiment wouldn't be noteworthy. Instead, we have the debate we have.

[Ken B]

I did not watch the debate but people I think sane were underwhelmed by Kasich. Depressing. This is inherent I think. I don't want a bomb-thrower like Trump even if I were to agree with him on more issues. But people like that get lost in the circus atmosphere, unless they have a lot of charisma. I'd like to see something more like a Firing Line approach, where a tough but not unfairly hostile interviewer presses the candidates individually, for an hour or two. Pipe dream I guess, but if you watch some old debates or probing interviews on say PBS from 40 years ago the level of debate will blow your socks off, so it can be done.