Thursday, March 19, 2015


We have all heard the inevitable Bush versus Clinton drum beat two seconds after Obama won his second term. Both have name recognition, a ton of money and a closet filled with skeletons. Hillary has a likeability factor, which similarly derailed Martha Coakley twice in MA, and a few actual scandals to deal with, not to mention a rabid Republican base that loathes her. Bush has a terrible Florida governorship to defend, a slew of failed businesses and the fact that both his father and brother were awful Presidents. Recent polls suggest that many on both sides do not want either.
Recent polls by Gallop and Rasmussen suggest a majority want fresh faces for 2016 from both sides. Hillary may lose to another Barack Obama type who appears on the stage with little baggage and a more believable message from a corporatist like the former first lady is. Bush is losing ground to someone like Scott Walker who people not familiar with the Wisconsin governor have backed. However, like Bush, Walker has a terrible record in his home state as GOP policies have been proven losers time and time again. Walker squandered money like a drunken fool while Minnesota next door, which was in much worse shape at one point, has rebounded as Wisconsin has been driven into the ground. Yet, the crack-smoking voters in that state re-elected him so stupid people do vote against their own interests on a daily basis. Way to go Wisconsin. You're starting to make Texas look good.

It's not helping the right who have decided to rerun the last election again, with the same talking points such as abortion bad, gay people evil, the rich need tax breaks and the poor can go fuck themselves. Three of the front runners, Bush, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio have all said they want to eliminate the minimum wage because as we all know working for two dollars an hour will improve everything. Nevermind the fact that everywhere the wage has been raised, prosperity has increased. Somehow, I think these ideas, combined with their stunning, third rail prospects on ending SS and Medicare, may sink them so far into the Earth, they may actually turn into diamonds.

As of right now, regardless of what the polls say as less than 15% are even paying attention, the GOP has zero hope of winning, regardless of who the democrats nominate. I say this knowing demographics where their insistence to ignore immigration reform will cost them the election alone, Nevermind scores of old people in places like Florida not voting for them again. The Republicans can only lose two of three states, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida, and hope to win. As of right now, PA is lost (it turned blue a while ago), Ohio is unlikely if Walker gets the nod for his anti-union stance and Florida is a no go if they continue with their attacks on entitlement programs. Lose one, it's bad, lose two it's over and lose all three, it's a landslide.
Both of the big guns have stumbled hard lately and the race hasn't even started. Hillary has had to face what should have been another non-scandal, but handled everything so poorly, which she is unfortunately known for, that even Democrats are wondering of she's ready for the position. Bush has come out for immigration, ending the minimum wage and, most lethally, raising taxes which might as well be a campaign promise to kick a puppy at every stop. His defense of Common Core standards is particularly jarring as this is something almost everyone agrees on regardless of party. I've seen it and they are beyond stupid. If they had been in use when I was in school, I would have flunked math regularly.

What we are seeing is a repeat of 2008 all over again. Republicans want someone who stands up for their beliefs. Democrats want someone electable. Guess which one is more likely to win? Everyone counted out Obama until he turned out to be a great orator, which would be great if he were also good at leading, or wheeling and dealing, both of which he kind of sucks at. The GOP meanwhile will fight over who is more conservative as if that was an electable factor. The country is becoming more liberal, not less as demographics conclude. Even within the Republican party is a civil war over things like gay rights and ending the drug war. The younger the voter, the more likely they are to strong held beliefs about both. However, most of the Republican party wants to go the other way, meaning younger voters are more likely to drift away and either not vote or vote for someone else.
The GOP is increasingly becoming a religious party and that is not going to happen anytime soon on a national scale. They will be guilty of classic overreach if they continue their anti-gay, anti-science agenda, which is why I refer to them a lot as American Taliban/ISIS. They want a theocracy that tells people what to do and how to do it, only in the name of Jesus instead of Allah. Six to one half a dozen to the other. Voting for these idiots is no better than grabbing a flight to Turkey and joining some terrorist idiots. The outcome is roughly the same. One just uses bills instead of bullets but both are equally dangerous to society.

History is also not on their side. This is from the Weekly Standard:

From the moment someone has first been elected or (in the case of those who become cabinet secretaries) appointed to a presidential steppingstone position, he’s had 14 years to get elected to either the presidency or the vice presidency, or else he’s never been elected president. Since 1860, there have been no exceptions. 

(Those who succeed in being elected vice president within the 14-year window are no longer on the clock and can potentially remain viable presidential candidates for some time to come. It took Richard Nixon only 2 years to move from senator to vice president, but 16 years to move from vice president to president.) 
The 14-year rule is bad news for Hillary and Jeb. In 2016, Clinton will be 16 years removed from first being elected to the Senate from New York. Bush will be 18 years removed from first being elected to the governorship of Florida.
That does not bode well for either. Here's who they have as prospects:
Based on history, then, the smart money would seem to be on one of the prospective candidates who were first elected to a presidential steppingstone office less than 14 years before 2016: Ted Cruz (elected 4 years prior to 2016), Mike Pence (4), Rand Paul (6), Marco Rubio (6), Scott Walker (6), Chris Christie (7), or Rick Perry (14, as Perry took over from Governor George W. Bush in 2000 but was himself first elected governor in 2002) on the Republican side; and Elizabeth Warren (4), Martin O’Malley (10), or Jim Webb (10) on the Democratic side. Joe Biden doesn’t meet the 14-year standard, as it took Slow Joe 36 years to get from the Senate to the vice-presidency—22 too many. (Al Gore, however, does qualify, having gone from senator to vice president in 8 years, thereby making himself more or less permanently eligible for voters’ consideration.)
I don't think any of those names for the GOP can win versus anyone on a national scale, especially if they have to kowtow to the insane far right to get nominated. It's almost impossible to veer off a cliff and then try to get back on the road without the other side calling you a flip-flopping douchebag. Any of the democratic names could easily pick off Hillary and just might of polls are to be believed.
The race is just getting started but for two of them, it may be coming to a premature end. Any way you look at it, stop voting for Republicans hell bent on world destruction. Their policies all but guarantee it.

No comments:

Post a Comment