I wonder if, somewhere in the vast pile of opinionating about Joe Biden’s decision not to seek his party’s nomination for the presidency, it’s been suggested that a major step has been taken in deciding who will be elected president? Maybe the decisive step. It’s all but a foregone conclusion that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee and, for good or ill, nearly ever voter in the United States has already made up his or her mind about Sec. Clinton.
IMO if the Republicans can harness their worst impulses just long enough to nominate an electable candidate, whoever that candidate is will take the White House. The torrent of negative advertising we’re bound to be deluged with this cycle will do what it always does: depress turnout. And depressing turnout will not work to Sec. Clinton’s advantage.
I’m not sure “electable” is so easily defined these days.
Except for Rubio, the electable GOP candidates are almost as familiar as Hillary Clinton. Is John Kasich going to rev up the GOP voters with facts about his grandchildren and his snazzy 90s-style Republican policies? Jeb Bush is actually in a worse spot than Clinton, since he seems so incapable of dealing at all with the events in brother’s presidency. And honestly, the fact that this guy has the most money should tell one a lot about the state of the GOP establishment braintrust.
Also, in 2012, where was the enthusiasm for Obama? How many idiots thought Romney would win all of the states he was killed in because Obama was so tuned out and done with? This was a convincing argument up until 7 pm election night.
I have no idea if Hillary Clinton will win. She’s a weak candidate, and the people who really support her are fairly irritating, at least on the internet. At the same time, she seems animated enough, now, at least, to be able to reproduce Obama’s 2012 campaign, especially against one of the guys running at 8% currently. And if I had to pick the person who could beat her, it’s Trump.
BTW, I’m not asserting that Hillary can’t win. Far from it. My view is at is has been for some time—that it will be a turnout election. If she can get enough of her voters to show up in the toss-up states, she’ll win. I think that sounds easier than it may turn out to be.
Or, alternatively, the Republicans could decide to run a candidate who will mobilize Hillary Clinton’s voters. Or demotivate their own.
IMO, all the democratic candidates are either weak, inept or corrupt — the last descriptive term being applied to Mrs. Clinton. But, this will not discourage the most loyal partisan from voting for her, least a republican take the reins at the WH — parish the thought!
As for the GOP, while there are nuts in that grouping, I still see more substance and value-added traits among their candidates along the lines of not only administrative experience but also ethical behavior.
Nonetheless, as is always the case, people will pick their own poison.
I don’t see people showing up for Hillary. I can see people showing up to vote against much of the GOP field. The chances of the GOP nominating someone that won’t provoke turnout against them seems small right now.
Steve
First off, I agree with just about everything you said in that comment, steve. The only thing I would add is that the Republicans’ strongest ticket as of this moment is probably Rubio-Fiorina, Fiorina primarily as an anti-Hillary attack dog.
Well, I already know I’m going to vote third party. I can’t support anyone vying for the ticket right now – the closest would have been Jim Webb, but he’s already gone.
I hoping it will be Trump vs Sanders though – that would make the debates actually interesting.
Yeah, Webb’s probably the closest to me, too.
I’m trying to decide between Canada and Switzerland. Canada is closer but I know the Swiss would take me in.
Although it was already clear that The Democratic Party had moved leftward* it was still shocking to see how out of place Webb was at the debate. I got the feeling that he thought so too (in addition to his frustration that the media driven narrative was putting all of the focus on Hillary and Sanders.)
*that is an inadequate and somewhat inept description of the morph from liberal to progressive! but clearly the party has morphed into something much different than it was just 10-15 years ago. You hear this about the GOP (with some truth) but I think the change in the Democratic Party is more pronounced.
“t I think the change in the Democratic Party is more pronounced.”
Interesting. In what areas? On foreign policy, the Dems are pretty much just GOP lite. The liberal interventionists want to intrude way too much of my tastes, even if they are dovish compared with the GOP. They have pretty much sold out to the finance sector, almost as bad as the GOP. Yes, they want to raise taxes, but that is not new. They have always wanted health care reform, and the plan they passed is pretty much Romneycare, which is pretty much the GOP plan, circa 1994.
Steve
I’m actually surprised Andy and Dave viewed Webb as the closest to their own political perspectives. In the debates he seemed out of step with the leftward direction of fellow dems occupying the stage with him. In fact he seemed like a transplanted “conservative.”
Think pink – Nicki Minaj 2016, a president we can all get behind.
Steve-
It’s complicated which is why I said that “leftward” doesn’t adequately express it. Much of the muddies is because the rhetoric doesn’t match the policy, and so I can fully understand why voters why identify with the left would feel that the party still hasn’t embraced the ideology they favor.
Regarding issues- social issues and gun control, certainly the party has moved from the more moderate positions they used to include (no room at all anymore for prolife or pro 2nd amendment rights, or for support of traditional heterosexual marriage-the latter a position that even Obama was afraid to let go of just a few years ago.)
And yet the movements supporting the social changes have not retained the classical liberal positions of tolerance and have increasingly become authoritarian.
And economically, the party has become more outspoken about income inequality and redistribution (to the point that the formerly centrist Clinton now competes with a declared socialist.) Again, I can see why true leftists are us satisfied because Clinton is still Clinton, a corporatist- but she is now talking the talk if not walking the walk. My point is that this leaves no room in the party for more moderate stances that would focus on growth instead of redistribution.
Just to touch on some of those, inequality really wasnt much of a problem in the past. Nearly every left of center economist, and non-economist, understands that some inequality is good. However, we are concerned that is has reached a detrimental level. No need to address it earlier. While that might make the left look more leftish, I think it is just addressing a new problem.
You don’t seem to remember that we actually had an assault weapon ban from 1994-2004. Should I mention that Bernie Sanders and Harry Reid are pro-gun? Maybe not the gun absolutists which many on the right have become, but the kind of gun owners people like me have been all along. We don’t pose for pictures with them while dressed up in camp. It’s just another tool, but one that is dangerous and a few limits on them make sense. The NRA position actually until the 70s-80s.
I think I could agree with you that on several of the social issues there is less tolerance. Certainly seems to be true in some of my reading. However, even then, I mostly see it written about on college campuses, and oddly enough I don’t think 20 y/o co-eds are representative of either myself or anyone I know.
Steve
My concern, as usual, is less about principles and more about ways and means. So far nobody has come up with any way to have less income inequality. There is an unfounded assumption that raising the marginal tax rate will raise the effective tax rate. The effective tax rate now is around 28%. The highest it’s ever been is just a few percentage points higher than that (during World War II)—not enough to have a material impact on income inequality.
Should I mention that Bernie Sanders and Harry Reid are pro-gun?
Uh huh. Should I mention that they are both septuagenarians? I have a feeling their positions on gun control won’t be tolerated much longer, based on the candidates all trying to outdo each other on how hated they are by the NRA.
On economics, no doubt you are right about the cause for the shift. Doesn’t make me any more likely to think that more redistribution is the answer though.