So thus far, four candidates have announced their campaigns to run for President. They are Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Hillary Clinton, and Marco Rubio. I personally do not think that Ted Cruz or Rand Paul have a shot in hell at winning. Ted Cruz is perceived as far too extreme right-wing while Rand Paul is perceived as being too extreme libertarian right-wing. Cruz also is a first-term Senator and comes across as thinking that he is the smartest guy in the room.
Rand Paul meanwhile comes across to many as sexist after how he handled the interviews with two female news anchors. Some point out that he has also been snarky with male news anchors too, but there are two problems with this. For one, perception is what counts for the votes, not reality, so if too many people perceive him as sexist, then that's just as bad as actually openly being sexist. Two, even if he is not perceived as sexist, he can be perceived as not being able to control himself, which is not a good sign for a leader, in particular for President of the United States.
Rand Paul strikes me as having the arrogance that, in my own experience, too many libertarians have, whereby the perceive themselves very smugly as the smartest people in the room, sneering at the utter stupidity of those conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, neither of whom can see the ridiculousness of their ways. Yet, if one of these conservatives or liberals confronts the libertarian on why they see the libertarian views as ridiculous, said libertarian then gets bent-out-of-shape or resorts to name calling. Paul demonstrated this in his interview with Fox News's Megyn Kelly, when he was referring to the "neocons," which is a derogatory name for neoconservatives, usually thrown out by people who don't really know what the term actually means. Paul used it multiple times in reference to other Republicnas, and when Megyn Kelly asked him, "What is a 'neocon,'" he replied with (paraphrasing), "They know who they are." He exhibits that same type of libertarian arrogance that assumes that it and only it is the "true" form of conservatism or right-wing thinking and that variants such as neoconservatism are perversions of right-wing principles and not "true" conservatism. He also is a first-term Senator like Cruz, which is a disadvantage. Being a Senator period in running for President on the Republican side is a disadvantage, because you haven't actually run anything and the media will point this out, while they will cover much more for Democrats.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton launched her campaign with a social media video. It was very professionally/slickly produced, and basically shows everyday Americans and then Hillary saying that Americans need someone who will stand up for them, and thus she is running for President. Hillary has a lot of baggage, and many people either like her a lot while others hate her. I am more ambivalent about her as I don't know what is truth and what isn't about her. The recent e-mail scandal with her though does feed the impression that she is one for whom the normal rules don't apply. I do not think she will have any special advantage or disadvantage in running. I agree with Charles Krauthammer that whether she wins or loses will depend on the Republican.
Marco Rubio announced his campaign with a big speech in which he took a shot at Hillary, saying, "Yesterday, a candidate from yesterday promised to take us back to yesterday." Rubio is young and dynamic, but he is a first-term Senator and, combined with how young-looking he is, I think will make it very much a toss-up in terms of whether he could beat Hillary as many might look at him as being too much of a kid. He could be a good Vice Presidential nominee though.
It is interesting in that Hillary strikes me as being a very beatable candidate (not that I am any political expert, but this is just my opinion), yet, the GOP thus far is fielding lousy candidates. If either Ted Cruz or Rand Paul is the Republican nominee, it will be a President Hillary Clinton I have no doubt. If Marco Rubio is the nominee, it is probably a 50/50 toss-up. Hillary is old, both politically and literally, and establishment, and perceived as power-hungry. But she also can be perceived as experienced, or at least much more so than Rubio. Her having been Secretary of State will mean she can tout having actual foreign policy experience (whether she was a good SoS is a separate issue, but the media will try to cover for any flaws in her time as SoS). Rubio is young and dynamic (both politically and literally), but that also is the problem. He could be looked at as an inexperienced kid, and people also will factor in how Obama lacked experience and the country hasn't faired well under him (which IMO, is more due to his ideology than lack of experience, but many will consider it his lack of experience and that may well also be a contributor).
I very much want the GOP to win, so this all concerns me. Many in the Establishment GOP have been pinning their hopes on Jeb Bush. That you'll have these various other candidates run, such as Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, maybe Scott Walker, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, and maybe Donald Trump, but in the end, these will all be jokes, and it will be Jeb Bush, the establishment guy who will end up getting it, as he was a successful governor of Florida.
The problem as I see it thus far with Jeb Bush, and that apparently also is beginning to concern the establishment GOP, is that he is such a blah candidate. He seems to have no personality and just comes across as an OGRE, i.e. Old Guard Republican Establishment. He is like the epitome of the old-guard, boring, old, blah, establishment white male Republican. And if pitted against Hillary, well then it will be a total toss-up most likely, because we will have two totally establishment candidates, a Clinton and a Bush.
But who else in the GOP could possibly defeat Hillary? Rand Paul can't. Ted Cruz can't. Marco Rubio is most likely a toss-up. Ben Carson can't (he has no executive experience, has come across as rather ignorant on certain issues, and as very anti-gay which will hurt him with moderates). Carly Fiorina most likely can't (she has the aura of having driven Hewlett-Packard into the ground---I don't know how factual that is, but that is the impression that many have about her). Donald Trump can't (he would likely make a mockery of the whole process if he really ran, although I do like a lot of his positions). And Jeb Bush thus far it looks like would at best be a total toss-up. I think the only candidate who might have a shot is Scott Walker, who has been a successful governor of Wisconsin, a purple state and been re-elected in said purple state after running on and following through on conservative policies.
If Only Marco Rubio had Jeb Bush's experience as a governor. Also, I almost forgot to mention, the grassroots of the Republican party DO NOT like Jeb Bush. Some say that Hillary will also most likely lose because generally the public only elects someone from the same party twice, going back to Eisenhower. That George H. W. Bush only got elected after Reagan because Reagan's presidency was so successful, whereas Obama's presidency has not been. But I think in modern times, some of the old "rules" of politics have changed and that this particular rule doesn't hold nearly as much anymore. I would not be surprised at all if people elect Hillary over the GOP candidate, unless the GOP candidate is able to really articulate a good vision for American and counter Hillary. And while Hillary is perceived by many in the GOP as just being a continuation of Obama's policies, many in the general public I do not think see it that way. She is seen as being more centrist then Obama, and thus could be seen as being sufficiently different from him that she wouldn't be a pure continuation of him, thus prompting many who do not think Obama has been a good president to vote for her. Hopefully I am wrong on all this though. It is a shame that the GOP has to choose it seems either between extremist candidates or establishment candidates who are unable to defend conservatism and just come across as light versions of the Democrats.
I also think that the issue of abortion and same-sex marriage could doom the GOP again as well. I wonder if the GOP will ever be able to win the Presidency again due to the perception of it as being anti-Hispanic because of its stand on the border, and it losing too many independent, youth, and women's votes due to its hard-line stances on abortion (completely outlaw except for rape, incest, and life and health of the mother) and same-sex marriage. Romney soared in the polls after that first debate with Obama. Women went into the debate actively disliking him due to months of Obama campaign propaganda and then came out really liking him. But then the Obama campaign concentrated on his social conservatism, and that helped do him in with women, independents, and youth voters. And then the Hispanic vote was terrified of him and thus big-time went for Obama (to the apparent shock of the GOP, who for some reason thought that they Hispanic vote would vote in larger numbers of them even with all the anti illegal-immigration rhetoric and not going and actually talking with Hispanics).
No comments:
Post a Comment