Ben Carson and Donald Trump Watch the Democratic Debate

It is possible, albeit not likely that either Trump or Carson will be the next President of the United States. For the first time in the race, Carson is moving ahead of Trump in the Iowa polls. Generally the two men have ignored each other. That has started to change. For different reasons I think each man is unqualified to become President of the United States. Trump seems to think that he can run roughshod over the concept of separation of powers (and other countries' interests) by force of his personality and intelligence. Carson believes that the problem is that the previous Presidents have lacked morality and common sense.  From Carson's point of view being President isn't exactly brain surgery. Of course it's hard to always suss out what Carson believes due to his tendency to mumble. Either way the Republican race will continue to be more entertaining than the downright soporific Democratic race. You may have heard that candidate Lincoln Chafee dropped out of the race. His ten supporters were devastated. Everyone else spent about five seconds trying to remember who Chafee was and why he was running in the first place. Anyway, as you might expect Donald Trump did not take the news of Carson's Iowa surge well, first retweeting a snarky comment about Iowans' intelligence and then saying he didn't believe the polls, while taking a shot at Carson's super laid back demeanor.  MIAMI (AP) — Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump dismissed polls that show him trailing Dr. Ben Carson in Iowa, calling the retired neurosurgeon "super low-energy" before a boisterous crowd in Miami on Friday night. The Iowa polls are a rare setback for the billionaire businessman's campaign. He's leading polls nationally and in other early primary states. Mimicking a television journalist reporting the breaking news of Trump slipping behind Carson, Trump ridiculed his GOP rival. "We informed Ben, but he was sleeping," Trump joked. The crowd roared. He also said the polls in Iowa "are wrong" and said most pollsters "don't like me at all."
LINK
I wonder what Carson and Trump thought of the recent Democratic debate? Fortunately there is footage of their discussion concerning that.

Jim Webb Quits Presidential Race

Well that didn't take too long and really wasn't that surprising. Jim Webb announced today that he is dropping his race for President -- as a Democrat. He is not willing just yet to say no to the idea of running as an independent. As we discussed earlier, Jim Webb no longer fits with the soul of the national Democratic party and hasn't for quite some time. His relative lack of charisma and complete lack of funds didn't help matters either. It remains to be seen if there are a number of independent voters who are yearning to breathe freely and vote for Jim Webb for President. I would doubt it. I don't think that Webb did himself any favors in the Democratic debate by constantly complaining about his perceived lack of speaking time or attention. But some of that rancor no doubt arose from Webb's rounding error level of polling support. Watching the debate it seemed that Webb was just as frustrated by the fact that no one seemed to know who he was as by the moderator's alleged dismissals. Webb is famously proud of his supposed touchiness. And it was on display again today.
Webb isn't completely out of the 2016 mix just yet. He said he is still considering an independent bid for president."How I remain as a voice will depend on the kind of support I'm shown," said Webb. "Though I'm not going away, I'm thinking about all my options." That would be an uphill climb for the underfunded former one-term senator. Raising money to fuel a run is only half of the problem; getting on the ballot in all 50 states would be an expensive proposition. He should not be completely discounted, however — Webb's home state is Virginia. The swing state has been especially crucial in recent presidential elections, and if he peels off even a small percentage of the vote, that could be a problem for Democrats. As for whether Webb still considers himself a Democrat, Webb paused and told a reporter, "We'll think about that."

LINK

The more interesting question to me is not whether Webb runs or not. He is irrelevant. He was never going to be President. The more interesting question is can the Democratic party continue to win nationally while continuing to lose the votes of white men or more specifically of a certain class of white men. These are the people for whom Webb tried to position himself as speaking for, albeit with decidedly mixed results. As the two major parties ready themselves for a post-Obama election it will be fascinating to see if the winning Obama coalition will hold together without him on the ballot or if the class and racial polarization in this society makes each major political party almost completely identified with and subsumed by parochial interests. So Webb's departure may be seen as utterly meaningless or as the canary in the coal mine incident. Right now I'm leaning towards utterly meaningless.

Recap: The First Democratic Debate

Five democratic candidates for President of the United States took the debate stage in Las Vegas last night to face off over the issues for the very first time. Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Martin O'Malley introduced themselves to the American people and then got down and dirty in the political mud.

No topic was off limits. Gun control. Hillary Clinton's Emails. Benghazi. Syria. Russia. The Economy. Black Lives Matter. The candidates covered it all. Well, at least some of them did, and that is where we have a problem, if you don't like your candidates chosen for you.




Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders clearly had more debate prep than any of the other candidates on the stage. And by debate prep I mean Clinton's failed 2008 run when she endlessly debated then Senator Barack Obama despite having no chance at the nomination, and Clinton and Sanders' storied histories in the halls of Congress. As for the other candidates, they barely registered in the key arguments being put forth in the debate. It was the Hillary and Bernie show.

One of the most contentious issues early on was gun control. The gloves came off between the old Senate fellows. Hillary Clinton said Bernie Sanders wasn't tough enough on gun control. Bernie tried to argue that there is a difference in the perception of guns in rural areas versus more urban areas, and while he is technically right, that technicality doesn't matter when you consider the students and teachers of Sandy Hook were teaching and learning in a rural area when they were massacred by a madman.

The debate on gun control quickly devolved into a debate about war and who would be a better Commander in Chief. Hillary Clinton was painted as too quick to press the button considering her voting record on Iraq. Bernie Sanders was painted as a pacifist, and the other three candidates pontificated about how they would have voted had they been in Congress, and what they will do once they become the President of the United States. Only Jim Webb could really speak about what it's really like to be at war considering his Marine background, but he squandered his chance to silence, and then complained that he didn't get enough time to speak.

From war the natural progression of the debate led to Syria, Russia, and Benghazi. This brought the marquee moment of the debate when Senator Bernie Sanders exclaimed, "We're tired of hearing about the damn emails." Hillary Clinton appreciated the vote of support from her socialist rival. The debate carried on and came to two of my favorite topics. Let's start with the economy.

On this topic the Democrats did what the Democrats always do. They blamed the Republican. In this case they blamed Bush. The campaign tactics of 2008 and 2012 when Obama ran were employed in earnest with a couple new twists. When the conversation turned to restoring Glass-Steagall all the candidates supported the move except Hillary Clinton. I wonder why? The obvious and only reason that Mrs. Clinton cannot support the restoration of the one piece of legislation that would keep investment banks separate from commercial/community banks is because it is the key piece of legislation her husband took pride in dismantling in the name of deregulation, trimming the fat, cutting the tape, and balancing the budget. While I'm sure President Clinton was well meaning in his actions back in those roaring 90s, it got us Millennials a lot of heartache in the aughts.

Instead of supporting the restoration of Glass-Steagall Mrs. Clinton promoted the failed pansy bill that is Dodd-Frank and promoted progressive capitalism with checks and balances. Bernie Sanders called her on her B.S. and Martin O'Malley, Lincoln Chafee, and Jim Webb wept. Or at least they should have for their silence.

Last night's debate was hosted by CNN in conjunction with Facebook. That means questions were taken from real people to see if the candidates truly know what's going within the pulse of the country. The first question posed was a simple one, but an important one (especially to this here blogger) "Do Black Live Matter or Do All Lives Matter?

All of the candidates stated why Black Lives Matter. Whether they believe in the movement and goals of the grassroots civil rights campaign or not they gave politically correct answers. All except for maybe Jim Webb. He stumbled around his work with the Black community and came up with I've been working with African Americans and their situation... Mr. Webb, what exactly is our situation?

The Black Lives Matter questions raises a broader issue, not just among the Democratic candidates but for the entire 2016 campaign on both sides of the aisle. Unless the next President is Ben Carson, then our next President will be forced to have a "black agenda." An agenda President Obama could not, does not, and can not outwardly have for the simple fact that he is Black. For the first Black President to have an explicitly Black agenda, while necessary, will be to some too explicitly racist and at very least pandering. I know. The psychology of our country is backwards. However, what Obama had to do through Attorney General Eric Holder, and now Attorney General Loretta Lynch Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump can do on their own. They can put forth a plan to promote the equality of minorities among the greater hegemony and by "pandering" if you will they get the minority vote they are looking for.

It's still a long road to go for both the Democrat and Republican ticket, and though I hate to admit it Hillary Clinton was the strongest candidate at the podium last night. I don't like her sense of entitlement, and I don't care for her deceptive scandals but she did make several compelling arguments and the other candidates, save for Bernie Sanders didn't put up much of a fight against her machine. Especially Martin O'Malley. He's running for Vice President. I'm sure of it.

Questions:

1. What did you think of the Democratic candidates' debate performance?
2. If the election were today who would you vote for?
3. Do there need to be more candidates in the race?

Ben Carson is a bigot

Black conservatives often complain that people, by which they mean liberals and/or other black people (and those two groups are not mutually exclusive), try to question their blackness or expel them from the black community because they have conservative views. Well all "blackness" really means in the American context is that you are apparently descended in whole or in part from people who recently originated in what's commonly known as "Black Africa". It's a circular definition. Blackness, however defined, definitely doesn't automatically imply anything about an individual's voting patterns, his views on sexuality, religion, preferred music, stance on economics, feelings about whether nature or nurture are more important in human development, favored sports teams or anything else. So I agree that one shouldn't assume that blackness automatically means you are or should be beholden to a specific political theory, party or way of life. On the other hand, given the black experience in America, which only in the past fifty years has fitfully moved beyond formal exclusion, it is a little jarring to see a black person enthusiastically take up bigoted ideas that were just recently used against him and his. Dr. Ben Carson, famed surgeon, Republican presidential candidate and nutcase extraordinaire, has been providing us a clinic on this sort of dissonance.

Washington (CNN) Ben Carson says the United States should not elect a Muslim president.

"I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that," the retired neurosurgeon and Republican presidential candidate said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Carson, meanwhile, was asked Sunday whether a president's faith should matter to voters. "I guess it depends on what that faith is," he said. "If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem." Asked whether Islam is consistent with the Constitution, Carson said: "No, I don't -- I do not."

This isn't the first time that Carson has said something stupid and/or offensive. I didn't expect too much intelligent discourse from someone who believes that the theory of evolution was inspired by Satan. I will say that every individual voter can decide on his or her own whether to vote for someone based on any number of reasons or characteristics, be they petty, bigoted or downright silly. You get to decide. Judging by their commentary, jokes, emails, letters, placards, and insults over the past seven years a sizable proportion of conservatives weren't thrilled with having a black man serve as President. No the real problem with Carson's declaration is not just that he reveals his inner bigot. No it's that Carson and his defenders don't seem to understand that Carson's implicit endorsement of a religious test for the office of President is directly contradicted by the United States Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

So that is that. It looks like it's not Islam that is incompatible with the Constitution but Carson. But there are some questions for Carson and those of like mind. If they think the Presidency should be off limits to Muslims shouldn't citizenship also be off limits? Should Muslims have lower expectations for privacy and civil liberties? Should Muslims be deported? And if so where? If Islam isn't compatible with the Constitution, should conversions be banned? And what about interfaith marriages? Shouldn't we stop those as well? We certainly don't want our fair Christian maidens marrying those devious Muslims SOB's. Right?  And if, by contrast, Christianity and Judaism are compatible with the Constitution does Carson think that a Christian President should live by Jesus' directive to resist not evil? I guess we could get rid of the Defense Department and all local police departments. If a Jewish President has a drunk disrespectful son is Carson going to be the first to call for a stoning, as is explicitly ordered in Deuteronomy? Hmm. Or maybe, just maybe Carson recognizes that a Christian or Jewish person is not a mindless automaton who lives by every last single word in their holy book. Or maybe Carson does want to live by the Holy Bible and is projecting his desires onto Muslims.

The Republican Party has relied overmuch on hating the other. It has relied overmuch on wedding itself to a specific type of pugnacious evangelical. No matter how much Carson and his fellow candidates such as Huckabee might wish otherwise, the United States is not a theocracy. Taking gratuitous shots at an entire religion simply alienates members of that religion who might vote for you. And for someone like Carson, who was born before Brown v. Board of Education, when segregation and white supremacy was the law of the land, to engage in religious bigotry to seek favor with people who haven't wholly left behind racial bigotry, is beyond pathetic.

Donald Trump and Megyn Kelly: Period Politics

I wrote before that Donald Trump is incredibly thin skinned for a man of such immense wealth. This was not any great insight on my part by any means. It's so obvious a blind man could see it. Trump does not take criticism well, sees slights everywhere and very quickly gets in beefs with folks over the most asinine things. Of course he or his supporters would say that someone who takes criticism well tends to get a lot of criticism. From this POV the best thing to do is to attack immediately and set expectations. I think Trump tries to live by the Office Space lawyer's advice passed on from his imprisoned client to "kick someone's a$$ the first day or become someone's b****." The other thing about Trump is that rather than attack someone's argument or theories he always attacks the person's intelligence, wealth, appearance or immutable characteristics. Trump did this most recently with Fox News personality and Republican debate moderator Megyn Kelly. In an interview with CNN's Don Lemon Trump made a dismissive reference to Kelly's period as a way of explaining what he saw as her undue aggression. He also retweeted a reference to Kelly as a bimbo. These comments, tweets and retweets all obviously caused some current and former Fox News personalities to attack Trump. Other conservatives have rescinded invitations to Trump to speak. I am loving this. It's amazing and amusing to me that a right wing movement that has said far worse things about the President, the First Lady and their children is now up in arms because of what Trump says about Megyn Kelly. Republicans already take it as an article of faith that President Obama is a man with no class. Heck, during the Democratic 2008 debates President Obama came under some criticism from fellow Democrats (wrongly in my opinion) for merely telling rival Hillary Clinton that she was "likable enough". I don't think the President would have been elected or re-elected if he were on public record telling anyone that the only reason some woman was attacking him or doing something else to annoy him was because she was on her cycle. Time will tell if these comments damage Trump's brand among conservatives. But they show that whatever else he is Trump is not a deep thinker or a man who is able to or willing to make intelligent arguments when faced with opposition. So maybe he is the perfect candidate for a Republican base that is increasingly filled with know-nothings.

"@timjcam: @megynkelly @FrankLuntz @realDonaldTrump Fox viewers give low marks to bimbo @MegynKelly will consider other programs!"

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 7, 2015

1st step: "anchor was on her period," says repub candidate. 2nd step: minions go, "hooray it's blunt." third step: lose election.

— GregGutfeld (@greggutfeld) August 8, 2015

Megyn Kelly's period is the third rail of American politics.

— Ana Marie Cox (@anamariecox) August 8, 2015

I am reminded of that passage from The Return of the King, where Sam and Frodo, hiding from an Orc patrol, witness two Orcs arguing before one murders the other and runs off. Emerging from hiding, Sam cynically remarks if this sort of friendliness would spread around Mordor, half of the good guys' problems would be over. But Frodo cautions otherwise:

"But that is the spirit of Mordor, Sam; and it has spread to every corner of it. Orcs have always behaved like that, or so the tales say, when they are on their own. But you can't get much hope out of it. They hate us far more, altogether and all the time. If those two had seen us, they would have dropped all their quarrel until we were dead."
Once this little intramural Republican sexism kerfuffle is over I am sure the Republicans won't have any new interest or understanding in changing how they talk about women or so-called women's issues. Fox News will continue to remain a bastion of barely repackaged racism and proud ignorance. And Kelly will continue to be a champion of that. It is what it is. After all, should Trump win the nomination, I am certain that Fox News will champion him against his Democratic opponent. Whoever comes out of the Republican gauntlet as winner is very likely to be hostile to some values which I hold dear. But for now, I am just sitting back and shaking my head. Ironically if Trump had taken the high road (LOL) and provided some reasons to support the argument that Fox News was trying to take him down, this whole controversy could have been avoided. But if Trump did that he wouldn't be Trump. One wonders exactly how Trump would know if or when Kelly is having periods. Does he have a special spidey sense for such things? And ultimately Kelly takes orders from Roger Ailes, like everyone else at Fox News. Will Trump go after Ailes?

Handicapping Major Party Declared Presidential Candidates (Part Three)

Everyday there's someone else announcing his candidacy because he thinks he has what it takes to be President of the United States. I really do believe that one possible reason for this number of candidates is because some people think that if the black guy could do it how hard could it really be. I'm not 100% serious writing that. Not completely anyway. But for all the myriad disagreements I have and will continue to have with President Obama it is still in some aspects pretty amazing that the twice elected President of United States is a black man with a name that is utterly non-European. That's a big deal. And it is also a big deal that America might follow the election of the first black President with the election of the first female President. But on the Republican side because there is no incumbent to follow or obvious heir, much like GRRM's War of The Five Kings, people think why not me? That HAS to be the justification for long shot mopes like Bobby Jindal, George Pataki or Ben Carson, to name a few. It's like the lottery. Someone has to win. And you can't win if you don't play. And even if you lose you may not have to return all of the campaign contributions. You could parlay your new fame into a television or radio show. Perhaps you have a book you'd like to peddle.Or maybe you intend to be the loyal opposition/sparring mate for whoever eventually does win. Then you can get a cushy cabinet position in their administration. Then you just kick back and do favors for lobbyists for three or four years before cashing in your chips and becoming a lobbyist or tripling your salary at a think tank. On the other hand if you really are trying to win the race there are different paths to victory for candidates, especially Republican ones, in an America with a browning electorate. Some Republican nominees would attempt to run up the score with white voters, particularly among the hard right base. Other Republicans would seek to placate the base but reach out to white suburban college educated voters of whatever political background who may not have seething rage about illegal immigration or gay marriage but who are still worried about their children's economic prospects. And some Democrats might point to the party's dismal national standing among white men, especially Southern white men, and claim that they can reverse that to build a new broad based coalition. I don't know and neither does anyone else who will win their party nominations and ultimately the Presidency or which argument will resonate most strongly with the voters. I do know that this race is going to be wide open, perhaps a little more on the Republican than the Democratic side, though Sanders is currently showing a little more strength and staying power than Clinton would probably like to see.

Scott Walker

Why he can win
The governor of Wisconsin could be the Republican Prince Who Was Promised. With the possible exception of New York City is there a region or area that is more closely associated with unions than the upper Midwest? I'm not sure that there is. The Midwest is where the modern labor movement was born and where it thrived for years. And yet, times change. Governor Scott Walker emasculated and humiliated public sector unions on their home turf. He beat them. He survived recall and was elected again despite the best effort of unions and sympathetic supporters. He took their best shot and is still standing. Unions are on the run. Walker's not stopping to rest on his laurels. He's going after tenure as well. His status as a college dropout may well endear him to some people who feel that overeducated Ivy League pointy headed elites are ruining America. There's no word as to whether this "aw shucks we's jus regular folk" schtick interferes with Walker's fealty to the MIT educated Koch Brothers. I'm guessing not. But in any event Walker greatly appeals to the "let them eat cake" cheap labor camp of the Republican capitalist class as well as to the resentful Republican proletariat who are often overcome with schadenfreude anytime a government worker loses his or her job, must take a lower salary or loses union rights. There was some data in the 2012 election that suggested that voter turnout in the Midwest among white conservatives was lower than expected. If Walker could reverse that he might make a few Midwest states besides Indiana turn red. And then it's anyone's ball game isn't it?

Why he can't win
Although he has started to walk the walk, as witnessed by his recent signing of the 20 week abortion ban, it's not really clear that Walker has always talked the talk around social issues which are dear to the hearts of conservatives, particularly in and around the Bible belt. On the issue of illegal immigration in particular he is a late convert. Some social conservatives feel used by the Republican establishment that whispers sweet nothings to them to get the vote but is really only interested in delivering things like low taxes and low regulation for their business class. Can Walker change any perception that he only cares about gutting unions?


Jim Webb

Why he can win
Webb is a throwback to years when the white vote, particularly the white male vote, was more up for grabs in Presidential elections than it is now. The world has changed however. In Presidential elections, Republicans routinely get 60%+ of white voters nationwide and much more in the South. But as we have seen that proportion is no longer enough to win the Presidential election. This has caused some internecine strife among Republicans. Some just want to ignore this and keep the same messaging. Others want to change messaging, if not policy, and try to woo away some winnable elements of the Democratic coalition. Others want to go full white nationalist and try to increase their percentage of the white vote, which is still by far the largest group in America. This Republican problem, viewed with much glee by some Democrats, also leaves other more conservative Democrats in a bind. But Webb may see this as an opportunity. If he attracts conservative/independent whites who are more interested in class and pocketbook issues than they are in ensuring that whoever makes the latest racist gaffe is suitably humiliated and shunned, then he can stop the Democratic losses among whites in Presidential elections. There is a nascent class consciousness among many working class white Southerners which usually loses to race consciousness. Webb could bridge this. Perhaps he can even win more than one or two Southern states. He's a combat vet, something fewer and fewer Presidential candidates are. And he wasn't just twiddling his thumbs. Webb put in work. He's got a Navy Cross, Bronze Stars, Purple Hearts and a Silver Star. He possesses foreign policy experience at higher levels as well, having served as Secretary of the Navy and Assistant Secretary of Defense. 

Why he can't win
Yeah. I was just kidding. His run is just an exercise in self-indulgence. He's to the right of where the Democratic Party base is moving. Many of his most logical and likely supporters have probably identified as Republican or independent for years. It will be a heavy lift for both policy and identity politics reasons for Webb to make successful inroads with many Democratic primary voters. Although I understand his attempt to find nuance around Confederate Flag displays, again the people who would support him most passionately are already Republicans. 

John Kasich

Why he can win
He's the other Republican governor from the Midwest running for President. He's managed to combine pragmatic conservatism with what he sees as good policy decisions to attract widespread support in his state. He won't easily be characterized as a mouth breathing goober who gets all of his information from AM radio. Like Walker, Kasich, would if nominated, try to provide a path to victory for the GOP through the upper Midwest, which has not yet undergone the demographic transformations which have turned Florida, Virginia and North Carolina into battleground states and placed California firmly out of reach. If the GOP can win Ohio it makes the electoral math much easier. Kasich's seeming reasonableness could entice some independents to vote for him, particularly if the Democratic candidate is lackluster.

Why he can't win
I was always told that if you graduated from Ohio State University it is a miracle that you manage to tie your shoes every morning let alone run for President. Ok, that's probably not a fair, accurate or nice statement, though I still would check to see if Kasich is wearing loafers. Kasich's problem is not that he hails from that state down south but that conservative as he is, he's not going to be conservative enough for the Republican base. Kasich expanded Medicaid in Ohio under Obamacare and has also supported Common Core standards. If he ever starts to get any traction in this crowded Republican field you can be sure his rivals will tell everyone about his positions. And that is when Republican voters across the nation will see that Kasich has a bit of a quick temper.  Now if you aim your ire at the normal Republican targets, media, minorities, welfare recipients, etc. all will be well and good. But if you're questioning the morality of Republican opposition to Obamacare and calling opponents stupid, I'm not sure you get too far with that (unless you're Trump). Also the positions of moderate conservative and snarky sarcastic ill-tempered conservative are already held by Jeb Bush and Chris Christie. Kasich will have to take them (and obviously Trump) down, to get any sort of traction. Right now he's just a rounding error in the polls.

Netroots Hecklers, Sanders, O'Malley and the Theater of Emotional Politics

Hecklers by definition want to disrupt someone's speech or presentation. They think that the presenter is missing some key points in his or her argument, is morally heinous, is focusing on incorrect topics, is wrong about everything and/or shouldn't even be allowed to speak in the first place. Now, I would never say that hecklers are always wrong but make no mistake heckling is a rude aggressive action. If you remember just a few weeks back an illegal immigrant transgender rights activist tried to heckle President Barack Obama at a White House event. After attempting to talk over this person and vainly appealing to a sense of decorum, the President had the person removed from the premises. Most of the President's political supporters were okay with this action. Some were openly amused by the President's forceful response. It's all about time and place. Interrupting someone is what heckling is all about. It's bad enough when someone heckles you. That's to be expected in politics. Politics is a contact sport with sharp elbows. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. But when someone tries to bogart an event that's something else indeed. There are some people or groups who can't get enough attention in their own right so they travel to other more popular events to hijack the narrative and reset the agenda to one of their own liking. Presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley found this out recently when at the Netroots Nation conference protesters chanting "Black lives matter" and "Say her name" heckled them, prevented them from speaking and briefly took over the stage.  But the protesters aren't doing themselves or their cause any favors by focusing on people who currently lack the power to initiate nationwide changes. More on this below. 

PHOENIX — A group of protesters repeatedly confronted Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland during a town hall discussion with liberal activists here on Saturday, demanding the Democratic presidential candidates address issues like discrimination and police brutality. Chanting, “What side are you on, my people, what side are you on?” and “Black lives matter,” the demonstrators moved to the front of the ballroom about 20 minutes into the event as Mr. O’Malley discussed proposed changes to Social Security. They remained there, heckling the candidates and posing questions, until organizers shut down the event, one of the centerpieces of the annual Netroots Nation conference.

If you recall, some people on the left, particularly on the more explicitly black nationalist left, have criticized and continue to criticize Barack Obama both as a candidate and as President, for not saying or doing more specifically about the systemic racist challenges that Black Americans face, particularly in the justice system. Until very recently the President's tepid responses were generally along the lines of "I'm not the President of Black America", "A rising tide lifts all boats" ,and "Pull your damn pants up and stop bothering me. I'm doing the best I can, and anyway these are generally local matters". Ok, I'm deliberately engaging in a bit of hyperbole for dramatic effect but not by all that much. The two most notable Black public figures who did have the temerity to question President Obama's program for black people, Professor Cornel West and Tavis Smiley, were generally ridiculed, shut down and dismissed by a great many black left intellectuals, politicians and most importantly voters. To be fair, in his second term and after the midterms President Obama has apparently felt more able to speak honestly and openly about his and the country's struggles around race and to seek some policy changes, some cosmetic, others truly revolutionary, around how race is experienced in this country. But that doesn't change the fact that for most of his term as President, black voters were "understanding", to put it mildly, that President Obama was not going to verbalize his inner Kwame Toure. That's not how the system works and probably not who he is anyway. So if people gave Obama a pass on that sort of stuff both as candidate and as President, why wouldn't they expect to give Martin O'Malley or Bernie Sanders a pass as well? It doesn't make any sense. Additionally, neither O'Malley nor Sanders currently has any sort of personal/legal authority over the state or federal prison system, any local police force, the US Department of Justice, the FBI, transfer of intelligence and military technology/weaponry to local police forces, or the ability to open and prosecute federal civil rights cases against local law enforcement officials.

You know who does have that sort of power and authority? President Obama and his Attorney General, Loretta Lynch. But I don't remember AG Lynch's confirmation hearings or press conference being interrupted by these protesters. In fact I seem to remember some of the very same people who are giving Sanders a suspicious look being ecstatic that the new AG was a black woman, without even bothering to look at her record or ask her some tough questions. Questioning Sanders' intentions because he represents a mostly white state shows that the person doing that is a demagogue who is ignorant of Sanders' past record and current political position and statements. This Netroots event was just an exercise in emotional theatrics. To close, the next President of the United States is going to be a white person. It is not going to be possible for people who muted their criticisms about social ills while Obama was President, to suddenly reinvent themselves as fearless social crusaders once there is a white President again. Life doesn't work that way. And if I were invited to speak anywhere I certainly wouldn't surrender the microphone to someone who's bumrushing the stage. You can ask questions during the Q&A or you can leave. If you want people to hear what you have to say get your own invitation or rent your own hall or have your own press conference. If O'Malley can't stand up to pushy protesters how can he sit in the Oval Office?

Key and Peele: Hillary Clinton Anger Translator

I don't watch a tremendous amount of television but I ran across this skit and thought it funny enough to share. I recognized Stephnie Weir from MADtv. I always thought she was a bit underrated there. Nice to see her here. I really like the whole Obama anger translator bit so it made sense to use it to parody Hillary Clinton. I think that like Obama or really most other politicians, Clinton keeps a lot of her true feelings very tightly wrapped. Key and Peele continue to impress. They, like Weir, are MADtv alumni and apparently reached out to Weir to do the translator bit.

Chris Christie is running for President: You gotta problem with that?

If it's Tuesday it must be time for another man or woman to announce that he or she is running for President. Today it was New Jersey governor Chris Christie. I think, similar to what happens after someone you know hits the lottery there's a feeling that if that person got lucky why not you. I think that after President Obama pulled off the longest of longshots by getting elected, not just once but twice, that a lot of would be candidates have reached the conclusion that if he can, they can. 

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) announced he's running for president in 2016. Christie told supporters of his plans in a phone call Tuesday morning, according to NBC and the AP. Christie made a public announcement Tuesday afternoon at Livingston High School, his alma mater, in Livingston, New Jersey. I am now ready to fight for the people of the United States of America," Christie said at the public announcement. He praised his home state during his speech, sharing how working as governor inspired him to run for president. Christie also took hits at lawmakers in Washington, including President Barack Obama, claiming a lack of productivity from Congress is giving Americans anxiety. "Both parties have failed our country... both parties have led us to believe that America, a country that was built on compromise -- that compromise is somehow a dirty word," Christie said. "We need to have the courage to choose, we need to have the courage to stand up and say 'enough,'" Christie added.

LINK

When I think of Governor Christie I think of aggression. To me that seems to be his defining characteristic. Some of that could just be my discomfort with his particular communication style, which is very stereotypically East Coast blunt. He reminds me of a few bosses or co-workers I had whom I did not like one bit. But then again what difference does it make if someone tells you that "Your idea stinks. Why are you even wasting my time with this bovine emission?" instead of telling you "Your idea needs a few tweaks. Let's discuss it later." Either way, someone is telling you that your idea is not what they needed. Christie strikes me as a man much more comfortable with the former phrasing. I tend to use the latter. Before the 2012 Presidential Election, people who were unhappy with what they saw as Romney's genteel style, tried to get Christie to run for President or get Romney to put Christie on the ticket as Vice-President. Christie's big draw would supposedly have been his pugnacious nature. Obviously neither event occurred and here we are. Christie has a few problems this time around. He may have missed his chance for the big time. There's the Bridgegate thingie. There's the fact that despite Christie's slow move to the right and his flip flops on social issues, I don't think too many Bible Belt Republican primary voters are thinking , Chris Christie, culture warrior. He's entering a very crowded field. He has low approval ratings in his home state. On the other hand Christie relishes attention and a good fight. Unlike Trump, Christie has actually won elected office. And doing so as a Republican in a reliably Democratic state shows that if nothing else, he's had good political instincts. 

I don't see Christie winning the nomination but there will be some fireworks between Christie and Paul, assuming both men make it to the televised debates. Christie has the confidence and deftness to make an appeal to moderates and independents should he somehow win the nomination. The question is how far right will he be willing to tack to appeal to the kinds of people who are calling for massive resistance to the Obergefell decision.

Bobby Jindal: Mr. Rogers runs for President

You may have heard that Louisiana Governor Piyush "Bobby"Jindal recently declared that he was running for President. I suppose that's just wonderful. Go big or go home I always say. At only 44 years old and a two term governor, former Congressman, former head of the Louisiana University system, and Rhodes Scholar, Jindal is an intelligent ambitious man. He's also a less than impressive public speaker. Remember this?  But more importantly he's a man who panders to the constant conservative feelings of being under siege and needing to strike out at the "other". In Jindal's worldview this other includes everyone from non-Christians and liberals, which to him appear to be the same, to especially Muslims.  His stupid repeating of a myth about London "no go zones" and his stubborn refusal to correct his statement when called out on it show that he's eager to appeal to bigotry against Muslims. His announcement speech was full of aggrieved rants about liberals who are supposedly at war with Christians and God. Why is it important if someone believes in a supernatural being or not? That's not the source of morality or political legitimacy.  Additionally, although it may be difficult for Governor Jindal to process this, there are millions of people who believe in the same faith as he does but see things very different politically. There are folks who read through the New Testament and didn't really pick up the ideas that Jesus said to hell with poor people, that it should be every man for himself, that the free market was the best way to organize everything in life, or that the road to prosperity is paved with corporate tax breaks. It's hard to believe I know but there you are. Governor Jindal may be the only Presidential candidate who ever conducted an exorcism, but I'm not sure that level of religious devotion is really what the American electorate is looking for in a President. The sort of Manichean worldview does fit in much more with the conservative mindset than it does with the liberal one. But the tide is turning (has turned?) on some of the issues of gender and sexuality which are near and dear to the social conservative heart. I think Jindal and company are going to find that out to their dismay. Well they would if they ever reached the general election. Jindal won't win the nomination because besides being somewhat goofy looking with an odd voice, he's trying to appeal to a base which is not necessarily inclined to nominate someone who's not a white male. As discussed previously, speaking of Hillary Clinton, NRA leader Wayne LaPierre sneered that eight years of one demographically symbolic President is enough, while recently Ann Coulter (wrongly) accused South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley of being an immigrant (based apparently on her South Asian heritage) who thus didn't understand American history.

So those are the sorts of people to whom Jindal will have to appeal. It's possible he could do just that. He was elected to Governor twice in Louisiana, after all. But I'm not seeing it on a larger stage. Not now. It would be a win for Jindal just to make it into the first debate. Fortunately for Jindal though, people from his parents' country can't vote in Republican primaries, because many seem less than impressed with Jindal and his perceived rejection of his ethnicity. Go figure.

Handicapping Major Party Declared Presidential Candidates (Part Two)

Donald Trump

Why he can win
Say his name! You know who he is. Everyone knows who he is. He's richer than Romney. He's tall. He's been a public figure for most of his adult life. He's usually surrounded by attractive women. His name is synonymous with an over the top wealth, pugnaciousness and clueless bigotry. He never stops talking about how great he is. If he says that often enough some voters might believe it. If nothing else he's not a politician. He could combine his salesmanship with a new found economic nationalism to convince people that they really ought to drop the middleman, and just vote for a dues paying member of the top 0.0001%. People of Trump's class are making many decisions behind the scenes anyway. Why not go full plutocracy? Part of Trump's brand is that he's a fighter who doesn't take any guff from anyone, especially those Chinese or Mexicans who are, in Trump's telling, responsible for everything that's wrong in your life.

Why he can't win
Trump has a very pronounced tendency to take every disagreement or criticism personally. Trump doesn't turn the other cheek or let any attack pass unchallenged. Revenge and payback are virtual Trump sacraments. For a man worth unbelievable amounts of money, Trump is quite thin-skinned. He will inevitably respond to any disapproval or disagreement by deriding his critic as a loser, stupid, fat, ugly, or poor. Obviously Trump considers wealth, success, and good looks to be of the highest importance. Trump's the king of ad hominem attacks. If he's in the televised Republican debates, his aggression and nastiness will entertain. But he won't go much further. Many Republicans simply don't like the man. If your base doesn't like you what do you do? Some of Trump's statements reveal an incredible ignorance of our political system. As both supporters and detractors of President Obama point out, the President can't just rule by fiat. A domineering personality will only get you so far. Once this reality starts to penetrate Trump's delusions about his popularity and applicable skill sets, the results won't be pretty. As mentioned, he doesn't handle rejection well. Rejection is for losers. If Trump is rejected then he will be a loser. But Trump can't be a loser. There could be a mental breakdown looming here folks.

George Pataki

Why he can win
Actually he really can't. Seriously are there Republican voters in the South, in the Midwest, in the West who are fiending for their Pataki fix? If there are, so far the polls haven't shown it. But you know people initially laughed at Clinton and Reagan. So you never know. Pataki is a polished but not exciting public speaker. He could inject some gravitas into the race. If he can win in the early Northeast primaries simply by not being a gaffe machine and showing contrast to the more exciting but unelectable hard right candidates, Pataki might hang around longer than some rivals would like. If that happens well I guess anything is theoretically possible. A flipped coin can land on its edge after all.

Why he can't win
Who is he? Has anyone outside of New York heard of this fellow? When I think of New York politicians I think of Rudy Giuliani, Anthony Weiner, Andrew Cuomo, Bill DeBlasio, Michael Bloomberg and Elliot Spitzer (who's in real estate now). I knew Pataki was a former governor but I was unfamiliar with his record. However one thing I did know is that Pataki is pro-choice. He's also not looking to fight to the last conservative in order to stop gay marriage. He says leave it to the states. Let that marinate for a second. That means that the Southern and Midwestern social conservatives would just not vote for him once they know his stance. They think they've compromised enough already by voting for McCain and Romney, whom they saw as wobbly on those issues. There are simply not enough pro-choice primary voting Republicans in existence to give Pataki the nomination. 



Lindsey Graham

Why he can win
From the amount of media coverage that Senator Graham obtains with his constant and genially deranged neo-colonial pronouncements on foreign policy you would think that he's the majority leader of the Senate or some sort of special envoy. He's neither. But he can point to a number of foreign policy reversals, setbacks and a few mistakes which the Obama Administration has made or experienced. Graham will claim that he predicted them (even if he didn't) and try to brand himself as a military man who has the foresight and toughness to stand by America's friends and against America's enemies. It's a longshot because Presidents don't often win or lose the job based on foreign policy concerns. But if you don't have the guts to take a chance, don't run for President. If you're concerned about ISIS, if you think Russia and China have been getting too big for their britches, if you think that the US needs to increase military spending, then Graham's your man. Graham will look to take on and take down Senator Rand Paul.

Why he can't win
Graham is unmarried and childless without many (any?) publicly known former girlfriends. He's been derided as pro-amnesty. Either stance alone is politically challenging for someone trying to woo an aggressively pro-natal and occasionally xenophobic Republican base. Together, they make it almost impossible for him to win. The idea of immigration reform that gives legal status or citizenship to illegal immigrants is a non-starter to many Republican primary voters. The perception held by some people across the political spectrum is that Graham is closeted. It's difficult for a single man to become President. Fellow Republicans are already making fun of Graham for his lack of female companionship. Graham himself is evidently worried about these rumors. He's giving interviews talking about his past girlfriends and being pictured doing "manly" things like shooting pool. It's not fair. Graham's personal life is no one's business but public figures must accept a certain intrusiveness. Ask Gary Hart. Joking that white men in male only clubs would do great in his presidency was not a good move. Graham should win or lose on the issues but often elections are just like high school  redux. The other reason Graham can't win is that judging by some past statements he would take the United States to war against, well just about everyone. The goofy grin and genteel accent won't help him sell more foreign interventions to voters.

Jeb Bush

Why he can win
The man dropped a significant amount of weight in a short period of time. He doesn't look portly any more. So there's that. Also although he is by any reasonable standard a man of the right, he's not (at least publicly) talking about the Obama Administration's secret plans to decrease the percentage of white voters or invade Texas or turn everyone Muslim. So Jeb Bush is electable. At least he would be if he can make it past the primary gauntlet. All he has to do is be just right enough to steal away enough primary voters to win and then remain slightly to the right of Hillary Clinton in the general election.


Why he can't win
Plenty of Republican voters and political handlers have not really forgiven Jeb's brother for making the Republican brand so toxic that Barack Obama won election twice. That still hurts. Another Bush on the ticket will bring back all of the previous bad feelings (and jokes) about George Bush's incompetence and cluelessness. Also like Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush will struggle a bit to let voters know exactly why he should be President. Why does he want to be President? Does he really want to be President or does he just think it's expected of him. How does he differentiate himself from his brother and father without seeming to be disloyal or slick? How do you criticize family publicly or respond to other people making such criticism. His campaign's recent invocation of Pickett's Charge as a model for his political struggle going forward was telling. Leaving aside the distastefulness of giving a shoutout to a Confederate general, Pickett's Charge was a poorly conceived, poorly planned and ultimately disastrous maneuver that destroyed Pickett's division and was later studied as a model of what not to do. Is that how Bush or his allies see his campaign? Interesting. Bush is also considered a moderate within Republican circles. He's not a guy who's screaming invective at illegal immigrants. He's establishment. I don't think this will help in the Republican primary field where there is a seething hatred towards establishment Republicans who have after all, lost twice to the black guy.


Martin O'Malley
Lincoln Chaffee
Why they can win
They can't.
Why they can't win
These two guys are the mini-me's of the Democratic primary season. I'm not yet convinced that Clinton didn't entice them into the race just to give the whiff of actual competition. They're the sparring partners. All they are supposed to do is give the fighter a work out, make sure she's sharp and task her a little bit but that's it. Doing serious damage or God forbid, winning, is not on the agenda. Much like Chuck Wepner did against Ali, they might go the distance or even knock Hillary down but at the end of the day neither one of them will win. Although each man will run to the left of Hillary, their records show a similar dedication to the same sort of bland corporatism which Hillary represents.


Rick Perry

Why he can win
There are three reasons that Rick Perry can win in 2016. (1) He's healthy and prepared this time. (2) He looks Presidential, and that's half the battle. (3) I forgot. Seriously though Perry could be the breakthrough candidate who can, a la Saint Ronald Reagan, bring together most of the Republican feuding tribes. He can make a good play for the evangelical voters. He can speak to the pro-military/neo-conservative folk. He's got his share of the big business crowd. As former governor of Texas almost by definition Perry can be competitive with the law-and-order caucus. He could even appeal to some libertarians by dint of Texas' relatively light regulatory touch. As a son of the South with the accent to prove it he will have appeal to that region's social conservatives. He was one of the few Republican candidates in the 2012 primary season who wasn't calling for immediate public executions of illegal immigrants. So if he can get through the primaries he could be that rare hard right candidate who has just enough of the human touch to win over a few swing states. Difficult but not impossible.

Why he can't win
Just kidding. Been there, done that. There's a saying that you never get a second chance to make a first impression. It will be difficult for Perry to reverse the belief that he's just another bellicose Texas lightweight who's eager to shoot from the hip but has no idea what he's talking about. His current poll numbers seem to suggest that Republican voters have kicked the tires, looked inside the hood and moved on.


Rick Santorum

Why he can win
2016 could see a massive change in the electorate. Out of nowhere voters will suddenly demand that their President be anti-evolution, anti-gay marriage, anti-contraception and pro-life with few if any exceptions. They will want a President who criticizes the Pope. It's time for Santorum! He's also no "free-trade" fundamentalist . If he can tone down his emphasis on social issues, he could have some appeal to working class voters who are not scared s***less about gays. 

Why he can't win
The field is not big enough to hold multiple people who want to tout their fidelity to a particular interpretation of a faith tradition as primary proof of their fitness to be President. Huckabee, Cruz, Perry and Carson as well as a few undeclared candidates will all be appealing to the same subset of voters as Santorum. When there is that much competition you need to stand out and shine. You also need to have some pretty sharp elbows. Santorum has the second trait but I'm not so sure about the first. His sharp emphasis on social issues means that he can't help but take positions on gender and sexual questions that are easily caricatured by the media and a future Democratic opponent. Ultimately people don't want to elect a President who is a moral scold.

Handicapping Major Party Declared Presidential Candidates

Hillary Clinton

Why she can win: 
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. All your votes are belong to us. Clinton has the money, the name, the media attention, and the air of invincibility. For those voters who really, really, really want to see a woman in the Oval Office, she could also be the culmination of years of dreams. And right now there's no one else in the Democratic Party who has the name or the organization to compete. The Clinton machine is sucking up a lot of the available donor money and the professionals who are needed to run a multi billion dollar campaign. Clinton is in it to win it. She obviously wants to be President very badly. There's no shame in that. There is in some quarters a nostalgia for middle class accomplishments during her husband's Presidency. Clinton is ready to take any and all rivals to poundtown. She's back. And this time...it's personal.

Why she can't win: 
She has a lot of negative baggage around her husband's honesty and the couple's alleged history of playing fast and loose with facts, restrictions and laws. Most of this won't matter to her likely voters but some of it will matter to voters on the right who view her as Satan's daughter. Some voters on the left also may see her as too beholden to corporate interests and just another big business democrat. To the extent that the 2016 campaign will include questions around race and the criminal justice system, Clinton will be hurt as until recently those are issues she avoided. Also she was supposed to be the inevitable candidate in 2008 before she got mollywhopped by the Hawaii Kid. I'm not sure she thinks fast on her feet or actually enjoys the campaign scrum. If the economy should worsen or there is some unforeseen foreign policy crisis over the next eighteen months then Clinton will have to perform a balancing act of explaining what she would do differently than the current Administration without enraging voters who support the Obama Administration or legitimizing the loons on the right who claim that the Obama Administration is the worst ever. Also, as NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre snidely stated, "Eight years of one demographically symbolic President is enough." There are some voters out there who want to see a white man as President, apparently quite badly. Clinton won't be able to change their minds. Clinton also needs to be able to justify to likely voters why she wants to be president. If she can't then expect the caricatures of "Because it's my turn dammit!!" to fly fast and furious, as some have already started.


Bernie Sanders

Why he can win: 
He's far more verbally adept than Clinton and enjoys getting into a good robust discussion around economic inequality, corporate malfeasance and health care. Given a fair shot, some of this rhetoric might resonate outside of his northeast liberal base. There's a fair amount of Don Quixote in his appeal. He could definitely surprise some people.

Why he can't win: 
Neither the Democratic Party nor the larger American electorate will vote en masse for a declared socialist to be President of the United States. Despite the rising economic inequality, outsourcing and falling wages and numbers of the middle class, most voters will never get past the socialist title to look at Sanders' record or ideas.  We haven't reached that point yet. And a skilled opponent can easily turn Sanders' passion against him by using it to portray him as just another doctrinaire East Coast liberal who wants to take your guns, make you marry someone of the same sex and eat tofu to save the environment. Even though the South has a (well-hidden) progressive streak in spots, as Democratic nominee, Sanders would probably lead the Democratic Party to a nationwide whupping unparalleled since 1984. The media will do its best to ignore Sanders. He won't have the money to rival Clinton. He's relying on individual contributions, not a SuperPac.



Carly Fiorina

Why she can win:
On any given Tuesday anything can happen. It's a long shot but if I could see the future I certainly wouldn't be where I am currently. Go big or go home. We all have dreams to pursue. If someone wants to be President, step into the ring and battle it out, I say have at it.

Why she can't win:
Most people only know her, if they know her at all, for spectacularly failing at Hewlett-Packard. She laid off 30,000 people before being forced out. She later decisively lost the 2010 California Senate election to Barbara Boxer. In other words: loser. Now everyone has to take a loss sometime in life but I don't see how Fiorina will be able to rebrand herself as a winner when her most recent and most important public performances have been disastrous. Is it possible? Sure. Just not very likely. Her primary role will be to remind women voters of all political persuasions that Hillary Clinton may not necessarily represent their interests. Ironically though much like Clinton, Fiorina has yet to show that anything except ambition is driving her interest to be President. That's true of all candidates of course but the trick is to not make it so obvious. A candidate must find the balance between saying vote for me because I want to be President as opposed to here's why you should vote for me because you want me to be President.



Marco Rubio

Why he can win:
He's young and photogenic. He has a home field advantage in the swing state of Florida. He can help to try to neutralize the media image of Republicans as the party of "old white men".
He's conservative but often manages to come across as reasonable instead of judgmental or scolding.

Why he can't win:
He's young and photogenic. That could work to his disadvantage. Rivals will claim that low information voters chose President Obama for similar reasons so why in the world should the country make the same mistake again. He's also shown some flexibility on immigration issues. Such flexibility tends to be anathema to the Republican base. People remember such things. His appeal to Hispanic voters who aren't Cuban Floridians could be highly overestimated. Rubio's positions on climate change and evolution could be and have already been easily mocked.



Rand Paul

Why he can win:
People are tired of war. Paul is at this point the only candidate on the right who seems to even occasionally question the number of wars the US is involved in, why we have so many military bases over the world, the level of foreign aid, and if the Constitution still applies on questions of civil liberties and domestic surveillance. He's also questioned the number of people we imprison.  If you're eager for some serious conversations about the correct application of law and the Constitution, if you want to discuss the proper limits of banking and the dangers of loose money, if you are fiending for someone to stand up and say "No. That's not America's job!" then Paul is someone to whom you should pay attention.

Why he can't win:
Paul straddles the line between libertarianism and conservatism. Where his father is a libertarian with conservative leanings, Paul seems to be more of a conservative with libertarian leanings. When push comes to shove, as it often does when you are in positions of leadership, Paul usually totes the conservative line. For example his co-signing of the letter to Iranian leadership sent a message to everyone that regardless of what his father or some other libertarians might think of neo-conservatives, Rand Paul is a man who is willing to do business with them. Although he's one of the few conservatives willing to talk about the impact of the War on Drugs on black communities, he still manages to be tone deaf in his associations with open racists and his statements about the black community. Paul gives off the strong vibe that given the chance he'd just as soon eliminate the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of 1964 and 1965. That won't help him make any inroads in the black community. And he's still not trusted or well liked within the neo-conservative community. For everything he says or does with which I agree there's an equal statement or vote that leaves me saying "huh?". I suspect that's a feeling shared by a number of likely voters.



Ted Cruz

Why he can win: 
If you want your conservatism uncut and don't want your conservatism stepped on, make your conservatism the C-Funk and watch Cruz drop the bomb. This man is 99.44% conservative. He wants you to know that. He wants everyone to know that. He will spend a great deal of time making sure that you know that. If you are really really really really really really really really really really really angry about the direction in which the country has gone over the past eight years you're probably not as angry as Cruz is.

Why he can't win:
Outside of movement doctrinaire conservatives and apparently a majority of Texas voters, no one likes this guy on a personal level. Apparently his intelligence and drive are off the charts, as even people who disagree with him admit, but his tendency to see the world in strictly Manichean terms strongly limits his ability or desire to work well with others. A rather strong resemblance to Senator Joe McCarthy won't help his chances. Cruz was not born in the United States. Although he's probably eligible to be President and is more nativist than most nativists, the issue of his Canadian birthplace will come up by hook or by crook, you can be sure of that. His racist father's statements will also play a part in defining Cruz should he somehow win the Republican nomination.


Ben Carson

Why he can win:
He's a brilliant surgeon with a compelling backstory who could appeal to those conservatives who are primarily interested in cultural issues. 

Why he can't win:
Many of the conservatives who are primarily interested in cultural issues also have zero desire to vote for a black man for President. See that Wayne LaPierre quote about Hillary again. That little problem notwithstanding, Carson occasionally comes across as the benignly demented bigoted uncle at family gatherings. Just out of the blue this person will say something that if said by a non-relative would have you calling them out of their name, throwing up hands or angrily leaving. Carson seems to enjoy saying things like this. In fact I suspect that he sees being able to say such things as the point of running for President in the first place. I believe he will discover that the point of running for President is to win. It's not to run your mouth or lead a moral revival. Although Carson has run hospital divisions and sat on corporate boards I think he will discover that running a campaign is a little different.


Mike Huckabee

Why he can win: 
He's going to work the same side of the street as Carson but without the disadvantage of being black. He could lock up the social conservatives who are sick and tired of being taken for granted by the Republican establishment. They want one of their own in the driver's seat or failing that someone they can trust implicitly. They need a hero. Huckabee just might be that man. He's also hit the "Islamic terror" meme pretty hard which might endear him to the neo-conservative pro-military intervention wing of the Republican party. He wants to recapture the Reagan magic and unite all of the disparate wings of the Republican party. Ahem. Those libertarians will have to sit at the back of the bus and not complain.

Why he can't win:
The genial smile, careful cadence and aw shucks Southern accent hides a mean streak. Huckabee also has a history of saying some rather nasty things about people who differ from him politically or otherwise. Like Carson and to a lesser extent Cruz Huckabee seems to think that running for President is all about fighting for certain cultural and moral values and emphasizing that he's not one of those transgender-loving gun-hating Prius-driving soy-latte-sipping secular sissy boy coastal liberals. He's a real God fearing grits eating American!!! This might help in some primaries but would be disastrous in a general election. Some other Republicans have questioned Huckabee's overemphasis on geographical and cultural affinities to stand in for political identification. Huckabee has also gained back most of the weight which he initially lost after a Type 2 diabetes diagnosis. Looks matter. I don't think people are going to send an overweight man to the White House, which is why Jeb Bush is currently on a crash diet.