Nate, this may be a little late as I just read your article. The historical facts I find interesting and articulate but; when a big elephant is sitting next to you at the table and you deliberately exclude (/iks-‘klud/ (to think that something, such as a possibility is not worth attention) is a gross mistake. I see that you are willing to forfeit journalistic integrity to stress a point; too bad that point is not sharp enough to realize that the elephant…is the relevancy you ignore.
This election we have an unprecedented candidate that has defied all political rules and still remains in the limelight by levitation of double digits. Why do you think that is?
Instead of addressing this phenomenon, what we read in your article is the same old analysis that had been feed to the public and reeks of political stench. The phenomenon (elephant) is buoyant in the polls due to a desire of the public to support a candidate that is self-sustained without the anchors of limitations spoon feed to candidates that you speak of.
Your omission denies the very existence of a candidate not beholden to special lobbyist or political correct restraints that encumber all other animal farm occupants sitting at the table…except…the elephant.
You see...no names.
This election we have an unprecedented candidate that has defied all political rules and still remains in the limelight by levitation of double digits. Why do you think that is?
Instead of addressing this phenomenon, what we read in your article is the same old analysis that had been feed to the public and reeks of political stench. The phenomenon (elephant) is buoyant in the polls due to a desire of the public to support a candidate that is self-sustained without the anchors of limitations spoon feed to candidates that you speak of.
Your omission denies the very existence of a candidate not beholden to special lobbyist or political correct restraints that encumber all other animal farm occupants sitting at the table…except…the elephant.
You see...no names.
Written like a term paper for a Poly Sci 101 course. Problem is, this time around a bunch of us Republicans are sick and tired of going along with the next pseudo Democrat the party elite pick out for us. As I venture into conversations with other Republicans few if any are enthusiastic about the slate you cover in this piece, with the possible exception of Rand Paul. In fact, today the one person who stands to shake the party elites to their core rose to the top in at least one major poll. The man, Donald Trump, conspicuously missing from this article. He IS the man who isn't going to play their game, and the only one who doesn't have to. Your historic models just are not going to apply here. We are sick and tired of electing Republicans who go to Washington and act like Democrats. It has been almost 30 years since Reagan was tricked into signing the amnesty of 1986 for 2 million illegals. Even with years of Republican control of power, we now have somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegals but nobody really knows. We have a $18 TRILLION debt that will hit $20 trillion by the 2016 election, we have Obamacare, gay marriage, sanctuary cities, sanctuary states, legal pot... we just don't trust politicians any more. They are all bought and paid for and slaves to the process you describe so well. Many of us will be voting for Donald Trump as a result. If you're going to vote for a Republican that acts like a Democrat, you might as well just vote for a real Democrat.
A good but old out of date model. Under the old model Jeb Bush would become the nominee. But he will not be. Technology and media played even bigger roles in the last two elections than is CW. My prediction: in the end there will be three candidates left, Walker, Rubio and Cruz. Debates and TV will make several things clear. 1. Scott Walker would be a good nominee. But he just can't stay in the vision/debate/personality ring with Rubio and Cruz. Both of them offer upbeat optimistic visions of where to take the country next that resonate with the values of a great majority of the country (anathema to the upper east side). Both of them are legitimate heirs of Ronald Reagan. That will be the ticket. Initially I thought Rubio would end up on top with Cruz taking the VP slot. But I don't think so now. I understand Rubio's approach to the immigration problem, but how he went about it really has damaged him and he isn't doing enough and the right thing to recover. At the core the question is the rule of law. As Americans we understand how absolutely central this is to our freedoms and our prosperity. That doesn't mean there can't be any mercy to go along with the justice of the law. But it can't appear that mercy is robbing justice. So Cruz will be the nominee, and Rubio the VP, and they will clean Hiillary's clock. Cruz will destroy her in every debate.
Are many of Rand Paul's views repugnant? Yes. Can he win the Republican primary? Probably not. Can he win the presidency? No. But should Rand Paul be cast down as a villain, incapable of generating meaningful conversation that both ends of the ideological spectrum can appreciate? Absolutely not.
I challenge the left-wing media conglomerate to, instead of chastising Rand Paul purely on the basis of some of his misguided views, facilitate his desire to engage in a national discussion pertaining to the pitfalls of 1) the American criminal justice system, and 2) the out-of-control surveillance apparatus (that many people seem to have forgotten about).
I challenge the left-wing media conglomerate to, instead of chastising Rand Paul purely on the basis of some of his misguided views, facilitate his desire to engage in a national discussion pertaining to the pitfalls of 1) the American criminal justice system, and 2) the out-of-control surveillance apparatus (that many people seem to have forgotten about).
Can some one wake me up when the media decides who the candidates will be, then I can watch the thunder dome begin. I think Rachel Maddow is Aunty.
1
Mr. Walker has a lot of negative baggage that does not appear in this article. Yes, he won a battle over unions, but he did it with political shenanigans, midnight votes, stifling debate, and apparent illegal actions. This is power politics at its worst. Why aren't these activities getting more airplay? Is Walker a teflon candidate? An untouchable darling of the radical right wing, being played against the darling of the centrist candidate, and all for keeping this a horse race and a media story? Walker is a creation of the Koch machine, and a spokes-model for Randian supremacy of the owning class.
Please dig into the dirt so the nation can understand the character defects of Walker.
Please dig into the dirt so the nation can understand the character defects of Walker.
6
American primaries and caucuses demonstrate a clear benefit of party boss politics.
1
In the competition to out duel each other for the defense of the second amendment, I can't wait to hear which Republican candidate will be the first advocate of open carry hand grenades, anti-tank guns, armed drones, tanks, and F16s. Why not..each person is his own little militia..right?
1
Forget the Second Amendment, the Democrats don't seem to like the First one either with their operatives descending on Trump to silence him after he made a 100% truthful statement about Mexico, which was backed up by the FBI in a report issued today. Seems the Socialist party no longer wants to allow those running for office to make speech that though true, does not fit their open borders strategy. While their candidate is busy deleting her incriminating email from her gov't service and avoiding congressional subpoena's. The fear of Donald Trump is palpable on the left.
"Chaotic"? No. Merely incompetent - characterized by the racism, buffoonery and bigotry perfectly acceptable to the ignoranus base of that party.
3
One problem with this analysis is that it doesn't acknowledge the role that delegate selection rules have on determining who is a viable candidate. In earning the nomination, it's all about gaining the most delegates to the national party convention. Elites play an outsize role in part because a large chunk of delegates are super delegates, not selected by any primary or caucus process. These are party national committee members and elected officials. Delegate allocation rules deny any delegates to any candidate who fails to achieve at least 15 percent of the vote, preventing slightly more marginal candidates in a crowded field from gaining traction. On the Republican side, most States have winner-take-all delegate allocation rules, so a candidate who receives less than 40 percent of the vote in a competitive 3-candidate primary could nonetheless win all the delegates from that State. A long, drawn-out nominating process such as the 2008 Obama-Clinton contest would be virtually impossible to see happen in the Republican nominating process. The Democratic Party is somewhat more democratic in allocating delegates proportionally, once a candidate exceeds the 15 percent minimum. The Obama campaign's ability to focus on delegate selection, especially in caucus States, was an important factor in his winning the nomination.
Given that there are a few credible candidates are assuming leading roles, the Republican primary process may not prove "chaotic." But with Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee in the chorus line, it will surely prove comedic.
10
To make any sense out of any comments, only pay attention to what people say about their own party. 2016 may only be a few months away but every news cycle and every world event will make it harder to make a choice before heading to the betting window. If the economy should turn down people will chose differently than if it were to take an up turn. I have no clue on who will be #45.
Just because most of the nuts in the pack haven't got a snow ball's chance in hell of winning doesn't mean it's not chaotic. It's chaotic and extremely entertaining! And as an added bonus, every time one of these nuts opens his mouth Clinton looks better. It's almost as good as when Palin made fun of her and caused a huge spike in donations for Clinton.
8
Last I heard from Barbara Bush was a decree "no new Bush", and now, Jeb. I cannot stand these people. After George Jr. was caught ignoring the chatter of an attack before 9/11, after George Jr. and Paulson announced on Dec.8, 2008 we were headed for another (worse) Great Depression and after the hanging chads in FLORIDA my patience has been exhausted by this family, save for the one thing I find positive: George Sr. says trickle down is "voo-doo" before being tapped for V.P., otherwise, I mean, can't the collective mind of citizens remember yesterday?
11
Yes, but...isn't this the sort of political coverage that Nate Silver warned us against?
1
What an insult to Jon Huntsman to be compared to Christie.
12
Agreed! Huntsman is the most rational and articulate of all the Republicans. The only one who I consider that has integrity.
8
Please name someone on the left whom you would think has integrity?
4
Bernie Sanders
6
Nate, do we have to?
1
Strange but I don't remember Howard Dean primarily for being an anti-war candidate. I saw his appeal as much broader.
5
Lots of villages are going to be without their idiots by the time the republican primaries are done . And I am a republican
8
It definitely will not be C. Christie....
4
Thoughtful piece. But just another way of explaining first tier, second tier, and third tier candidates. I can't envision an "invisible primary leader" without having primary results to look at. Primaries were devised to get around back room dealing. I guess primaries are useless exercises, except the media likes the dollars spent (especially television).
From a foreigner's perspective, American politics is one of the strangest, saddest things you could ever wish to see. It's like watching some family member get a hideous psych disease while doing a lot of crystal meth. At best, it's like a psycho Sesame Street with images by someone plagiarizing Dali. As far back as the Civil War, it has never been a pleasant historical sight for its alliances and often very iffy real politik, but it was credible as a group of fallible human beings. The book version has gone from Advise and Consent to a vague resemblance to Lolita. If this were the 60s protest movement, the songs would be "Where Have All the Issues Gone", "If I Had A Gavel", "This Land is Their Land", "FOX on the Rerun", and the deeply unmoving, long running classic "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Nuts".
The GOP seems to be a corporate hobbyist party these days, not noticeably accessible to the public or anyone else. Is there an actual GOP entity with any say in its own operations these days? If so, why, or for that matter, how? What possible purpose could it serve?
Same basic players, same scripts, same presentation. This is a macro, as the article suggests. There are no new candidates, in that sense. These people are basically re-electing Reagan, again and again.
The GOP seems to be a corporate hobbyist party these days, not noticeably accessible to the public or anyone else. Is there an actual GOP entity with any say in its own operations these days? If so, why, or for that matter, how? What possible purpose could it serve?
Same basic players, same scripts, same presentation. This is a macro, as the article suggests. There are no new candidates, in that sense. These people are basically re-electing Reagan, again and again.
5
The real problem with this analysis is the implicit assumption that all of these candidates are actually qualified to be President of the United States. All of these fellows put together can't make an entire brain capable of handling the duties and responsibilities of POTUS. If the electorate is ignorant enough to elect any one of them, we're in for a rough ride. See Bush, G.W. for a taste of what could follow, except imagine that on steroids.
15
With Hillary Clinton having sewed up the Democratic nomination even before the primaries, Republicans will be deciding on their own candidate based on his ability to oppose Hillary yet not antagonize women voters, the largest "faction" by far of the electorate. Hillary will be emphasizing women's rights, especially the right to choose abortion, but it's possible the issue will be resolved by the Supreme Court before the election -- and the Court has become the principal determinator of many key political issues.
2
Rubio is thirsty for the job.
5
Here's a different grouping:
Big Business (a.k.a. military-industrial complex, Wall Street, Big Oil), which usually wins in the end (they apparently dumped McCain after his pathetic behavior after the financial crisis hit, and threw their support to Obama).
Religious Right ("culture warriors" - against abortion and gay marriage and for prayer in schools - lots of eager voters)
Tea Party (a.k.a. white racists and gun nuts - lots more eager voters)
"Libertarians" (real ones like Ron Paul and pseudo ones like Rand Paul who decide they'd rather go after Big Business money).
Big Business (a.k.a. military-industrial complex, Wall Street, Big Oil), which usually wins in the end (they apparently dumped McCain after his pathetic behavior after the financial crisis hit, and threw their support to Obama).
Religious Right ("culture warriors" - against abortion and gay marriage and for prayer in schools - lots of eager voters)
Tea Party (a.k.a. white racists and gun nuts - lots more eager voters)
"Libertarians" (real ones like Ron Paul and pseudo ones like Rand Paul who decide they'd rather go after Big Business money).
4
Those who appear moderate and are not worry me most in this field. Ted Cruz could never win, at least the presidential election, Rand Paul needs to form his own party (and good luck to him on that), and Marco Rubio might have a chance at a vice-presidential bid, but will Bush really have him. That leaves Walker and Bush, both whom look like centrists. They're not, and I wonder if they can fake their way into the White House.
7
The Constitution reads that a president and vice president cannot be from the same state. Therefore Bush cannot choose Rubio. Nor would he.
3
Watching rand paul eat a big old steaming plate of crow last night on CNN and Fox was awesome.
3
Choatic? PATHETIC is more the word. Just as always.
14
"Mr. Christie is a different case. He adopted moderate views on guns"
On what planet are New Jersey's radical leftwing anti-gun laws "moderate"? There are people who are arrested at Newark International and in traffic stops who are exercising their right of free passage through New Jersey, as guaranteed by Federal law. Has Christie ever pardoned even ONE of them? In this, is he a moderate? New Jersey does not issue non-resident handgun permits, one of only a handful of radical states that do not do so. Is this moderate? New Jersey's permit system for its own residents is so Byzantine and difficult that few permits are issued. Is this moderate?
By the evidence, Chris Christie is a radical anti-gun nut. Only in the New York Times does this qualify as "moderate".
On what planet are New Jersey's radical leftwing anti-gun laws "moderate"? There are people who are arrested at Newark International and in traffic stops who are exercising their right of free passage through New Jersey, as guaranteed by Federal law. Has Christie ever pardoned even ONE of them? In this, is he a moderate? New Jersey does not issue non-resident handgun permits, one of only a handful of radical states that do not do so. Is this moderate? New Jersey's permit system for its own residents is so Byzantine and difficult that few permits are issued. Is this moderate?
By the evidence, Chris Christie is a radical anti-gun nut. Only in the New York Times does this qualify as "moderate".
"Radical leftwing anti-gun laws" in the United States?
Oh, how I wish it were true...
Oh, how I wish it were true...
10
People have freedom to pass through New Jersey; they don't have the freedom to violate NJ state laws while doing so.
6
"On what planet are New Jersey's radical leftwing anti-gun laws "moderate"?"
That planet would be called Earth. Also, it's not cool to steal people's names fake gocart.
That planet would be called Earth. Also, it's not cool to steal people's names fake gocart.
2
A fine analysis by Nate Cohn. But he overlooked the would be elephants in the room.
Down deep most Republicans expect Hillary to win in 2016. Not that they will throw in the towel in advance. They'll cheerfully keep spending donors' money until it runs out.
But not to get the nomination, let alone win the presidency, in 2016.
Unlike 2012, where, because of the lingering economic and foreign policy havoc that George W. Bush's presidency was still wreaking on Obama's first term, dysfunctionality that the Republicans gleefully perpetuated after their Tea Part win of the House in 2010, and their win in a census year which could be cashed in in terms of 1 Republican 2 votes redistricting, the Republicans thought they had at least a 50/50 shot of dislodging Obama.
No one entertains that fantasy in 2016.
So what's going on?
Every Republican is quite literally running for 2020, or 2024 if ther's not a major screw up in Hillary's first term -- which the Republican House will make every attempt to assure.
This is all jockeying for 2020 and 2024. So, sit back, relax and enjoy the 2016 season of The Gong Show.
Indeed, getting the vice presidential nod for the Republicans in 2020 and/or 2024 is the most visible prize at stake.
If Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, for example, can't get past Hillary in 2016, their chances of doing so, barring a catastrophe, plummet further in 2020, and are in the toilet by 2024.
Better to have lost as the vice presidential nominee in 2016 and/or 2020.
Down deep most Republicans expect Hillary to win in 2016. Not that they will throw in the towel in advance. They'll cheerfully keep spending donors' money until it runs out.
But not to get the nomination, let alone win the presidency, in 2016.
Unlike 2012, where, because of the lingering economic and foreign policy havoc that George W. Bush's presidency was still wreaking on Obama's first term, dysfunctionality that the Republicans gleefully perpetuated after their Tea Part win of the House in 2010, and their win in a census year which could be cashed in in terms of 1 Republican 2 votes redistricting, the Republicans thought they had at least a 50/50 shot of dislodging Obama.
No one entertains that fantasy in 2016.
So what's going on?
Every Republican is quite literally running for 2020, or 2024 if ther's not a major screw up in Hillary's first term -- which the Republican House will make every attempt to assure.
This is all jockeying for 2020 and 2024. So, sit back, relax and enjoy the 2016 season of The Gong Show.
Indeed, getting the vice presidential nod for the Republicans in 2020 and/or 2024 is the most visible prize at stake.
If Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, for example, can't get past Hillary in 2016, their chances of doing so, barring a catastrophe, plummet further in 2020, and are in the toilet by 2024.
Better to have lost as the vice presidential nominee in 2016 and/or 2020.
5
I meant of course:
" ... , getting the vice presidential nod for the Republicans in 2016 and/or 2020 [not 2020 and/or 2024] is the most visible prize at stake."
" ... , getting the vice presidential nod for the Republicans in 2016 and/or 2020 [not 2020 and/or 2024] is the most visible prize at stake."
This is a really good point. I'm a Republican but I don't at all expect Republicans to win in 2016.
Wow, move over Nate Silver. The NYT has Nate Cohn. Great analysis.
What a shame that Citizens United and the 501(c)3 contributions hide who is pulling the strings on all these puppets.
What a shame that Citizens United and the 501(c)3 contributions hide who is pulling the strings on all these puppets.
5
If you believe the wealthy shouldn't be taxed, then the GOP is your party. All its candidates are interchangeable.
10
This article provides far too much respect and credibility to any number pf "presidential hopefuls." People such as Paul, Rubio, Santorum, Perry, Carson, Huckabee, Walker, Cruz, Fiorina, Jindal, and Christie are simply NOT qualified to be president and need not be taken seriously. Their disqualifying factors range from a lack of intelligence (Perry, Rubio), a lack of relevant experience (Paul, Carson, Fiorina), a set of bizarre beliefs too far out of the mainstream (Huckabee, Santorum, Paul), or some serious personality and emotional defects (Cruz, Christie). The 2016 GOP is not quite the Clown Car of 2012 but it is close and the media does everyone a huge disservice by treating these people with a seriousness and respect that none of them deserve.
23
I think Paul, Rubio, and Walker have at least a small shot. Christie would have a few years ago but the political tide has shifted in others' favor.
I didn't consider Obama particularly qualified when he first ran (and to be honest, I still don't), but he won, so you never know.
However, after the current administration, I'd personally prefer someone with more experience.
I didn't consider Obama particularly qualified when he first ran (and to be honest, I still don't), but he won, so you never know.
However, after the current administration, I'd personally prefer someone with more experience.
1
wouldn't you put Jindal Factional Favorites? he has no chance as an alternative mainstream in my opinion.
5
I wouldn't say chaotic. I'd say crazy.
Chaotic implies someone is actually thinking. I don't see much of that yet in the role call for the GOP.
Chaotic implies someone is actually thinking. I don't see much of that yet in the role call for the GOP.
8
What a long-winded way of saying, "Candidates can be sorted into three classes: those funded by the merely rich, the super rich, and those funded by the very, veriest of the über-rich."
Gee, I wonder who'll win?
Gee, I wonder who'll win?
8
This was very enjoyable to read and the first thing that has got me really fired up about 2016. I'm hoping none of these men do well in the visible primary and that we can have another Democrat for another eight years.
12
We just have to make sure ordinary people know what political perspective is for their well-being and get them out to vote!
1
The GOP has only one objective for 2016 -- sideline the Evangelicals. Begin there, and everything makes perfect sense.
It is hard to believe the media pushing Bush on republicans when all they usually do is say "bush bush bush" and drive people crazy over the Bushes.
So, when Rand Paul went on to his crazy interview with Savanah yesterday, she should have had to say that her husband is a democrat political campaign adviser. Any of these people who are relatives of the Democrat campaigns should not be allowed to interview the republicans as if they are objective. They should make a disclaimer that says whatever it is, because many people serving at the news stations were in the White House with the Clintons, and no one will believe they want someone like Rand to win against here. So, if you served on a campaign or worked in the White house for the dems, you can't be the debate moderator, or be the one to vet the candidates.
So, when Rand Paul went on to his crazy interview with Savanah yesterday, she should have had to say that her husband is a democrat political campaign adviser. Any of these people who are relatives of the Democrat campaigns should not be allowed to interview the republicans as if they are objective. They should make a disclaimer that says whatever it is, because many people serving at the news stations were in the White House with the Clintons, and no one will believe they want someone like Rand to win against here. So, if you served on a campaign or worked in the White house for the dems, you can't be the debate moderator, or be the one to vet the candidates.
This country will be far better off by permitting a constitutional amendment to allow President Obama to serve four-more-years beyond his present term. Otherwise what awaits us is a never-ending onslaught of special prosecutors, investigations, scandals, wars, and vapid-Koch brother policies. The clown-show has begun!
America know when you are lucky! We have had almost seven years of peace!
America know when you are lucky! We have had almost seven years of peace!
10
God, what an awful idea.
I'm not a crazy Obama-is-the-devil person, but let's be honest, he's not a particularly strong president. He came in too young and naive; he's been forced to become much more moderate than he actually is ideologically, and as a result he doesn't seem passionate about anything. His decisions often come across as unfocused and confused.
The candidates from either party who have a reasonable shot all appear better-qualified.
I'm not a crazy Obama-is-the-devil person, but let's be honest, he's not a particularly strong president. He came in too young and naive; he's been forced to become much more moderate than he actually is ideologically, and as a result he doesn't seem passionate about anything. His decisions often come across as unfocused and confused.
The candidates from either party who have a reasonable shot all appear better-qualified.
The GOP candidate will be whoever the Koch's say it will be, and there is absolutely nothing fun about that. Scary and very dangerous.
16
Imagine writing this appraisal from the perspective of a Democrat's armchair.
Hillary Clinton. Deeply-indebted to her husband for allowing her to play "health care" tsar, followed by an uninspiring run at the Senate and as Secretary of State. Probably did more to make Americans aware of the power of NOT using g-mail or yahoo and how you can lie and constantly blame fictitious aliens lurking in the GOP.
Marty O'Malley. Please be serious. But I heard he could see the Canary Islands from the roof of a building in Baltimore.
Elizabeth Warren. Oh, you mean the person who lied about being a Native American. I guess that lying is a common trait among the Democrat's women. Perhaps we can get Elizabeth, Hillary, and Carly Fiorina on the stage to demonstrate that Democrats do NOT speak for all American women.
Write the article about the Democrats. It will be more fun than tsk-tsking Noah "What's Nis Name" from South Africa, and we can all stop talking about Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal.
Dog whistles, anyone? Seen a redneck NRA member around? Or a Bible-toting lunatic?
You guys are so tiresome.
Hillary Clinton. Deeply-indebted to her husband for allowing her to play "health care" tsar, followed by an uninspiring run at the Senate and as Secretary of State. Probably did more to make Americans aware of the power of NOT using g-mail or yahoo and how you can lie and constantly blame fictitious aliens lurking in the GOP.
Marty O'Malley. Please be serious. But I heard he could see the Canary Islands from the roof of a building in Baltimore.
Elizabeth Warren. Oh, you mean the person who lied about being a Native American. I guess that lying is a common trait among the Democrat's women. Perhaps we can get Elizabeth, Hillary, and Carly Fiorina on the stage to demonstrate that Democrats do NOT speak for all American women.
Write the article about the Democrats. It will be more fun than tsk-tsking Noah "What's Nis Name" from South Africa, and we can all stop talking about Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal.
Dog whistles, anyone? Seen a redneck NRA member around? Or a Bible-toting lunatic?
You guys are so tiresome.
2
Noah Trevor is his name
The article was written about the Party that had some major campaign announcements this week. I think its not a far-flung speculation that the NY Times will also write about Democrats, its just not in THIS article, which seems to be ok to some readers. And the most respected historians of Congress, Mann and Ornstein, who come from both sides really, have already debunked a lot of that tired false equivalency stuff.
2
Having delivered well-deserved beatings to the unions, three elections in a row and in a blue state, I am betting (and hoping) for Walker to be our next president.
1
You must not know anything about him then. He has driven Wisconsin into the toilet financially, divided people like never before, and shown nothing but disdain for the populace and the natural resources of our state. He surrounds himself with crooks (including pedophiles and people who steal from funds for veterans) and never appears in public. His "big and bold" self-descriptions, like his comparison of his experience and abilities to those of Ronald Reagan, are evidence of his narcissistic (if not sociopathic) personality.
And by the way, he'd never even carry Wisconsin in a presidential race. Gerrymandering and outside money and election shenanigans played a part in each of his recent victories, as has extracting every vote out of the rabid right-wing base of the racially segregated Milwaukee suburbs and rural areas. After what he has done here, no way could he get the votes of moderates or independents. He has nothing positive to offer at all.
And by the way, he'd never even carry Wisconsin in a presidential race. Gerrymandering and outside money and election shenanigans played a part in each of his recent victories, as has extracting every vote out of the rabid right-wing base of the racially segregated Milwaukee suburbs and rural areas. After what he has done here, no way could he get the votes of moderates or independents. He has nothing positive to offer at all.
16
The last thing I heard Walker say was that his achievements as an Eagle Scout have prepared him to be Commander in Chief. I nearly choked on my turkey sandwich. The teachers unions that you are referring to RS did not deserve a "beat down" as you so eloquently put it. They were unjustly trashed by a Republican ideologue with lofty ambitions. God help us all if Walker steps over the threshold of the White House.
10
One factor missing from this analysis is that governors have a record to run on which, in several cases, seems to have eliminated some of those otherwise considered by Mr. Cohn. Chris Christie has become quite unpopular in NJ, disapproved by 54-41% in the latest poll, due not only to the GW Bridge lane closing scandal, but also to failures on Hurricane Sandy relief (once a source of strength) and the budget, especially on his broken pension reform promises. With indictments coming for aides in Bridgegate, I am guessing that he won't even run. Jindal's fiscal management of Louisiana has been a total disaster, resulting in even lower home state ratings than Christie. He, too, has little chance and probably won't run. Finally, Mike Pence's handling of Indiana's RFRA law was so incompetent, that his minimal chances of winning the nomination or even becoming a significant presence, have entirely vanished.
4
Putting aside all the non-relevant blather, the only issue is which Republican candidate meets one and only one criterion: will the candidate advance the completion of the takeover of all the wealth and income of America by the 1%?
The details are not important.
The details are not important.
15
Does anyone actually believe that Paul, Cruz, and Walker et al are really running? Isn't this The Gingrich Maneuver, whereby one garners a lot of press, gets a lot of donations, cements in a three-book deal, racks up loads of speaker fees, and then is set for life in the 1% by establishing a relatively small but fanatically dedicated base of boobooheads who'll pay $25 a pop for said books and $100 for said speeches? Boobooheads, I might add, who are seen only as a source of easy income and completely forgotten about as soon as the dough hits the offshore account?
18
What are the odds that they all let Bush continue to raise money, unrestricted, while they run around in the candidate clown car. Then, Jeb sweeps in, at the last minutes, to "save the day?" The last name is BUSH!
5
I'm sorry, I can't get past the first two paragraphs..."the most formidable name in politics, Bush"...I know you people don't put much stock in what we durned outsider haff ta say, but the thought that Bush is a proud political name sets off laughter around the world...good luck, but you are forever doomed.
38
Considering that GW is probably afraid to leave he country for fear of being arrested, for war crimes, or assassinated by a disgruntled Middle Easterner, anxious for his 72 virgins. (What do the female martyrs get? Unabashed gratitude?)
4
I was felled by 'rising stars' and "deepest and strongest field" being applied to this motley crew, most of whom are only pretending to run and some of whom really are cuckoo. The whole article has a surreal aura, like sitting with someone who's earnestly discussing philosophy or stock prices while wearing one of those trick arrow hats.
2
Neither Jeb Bush nor Hillary Clinton will be the next president. While the media adores a political dynasty, I think American voters are far less enthralled with the idea.
Also, both have spouse issues. When it comes right down to it, I'm not sure Americans will want Old Bill back in the White House. He made George W. Bush possible. I loved Bill Clinton as president. Still do. But I can't forgive him for helping make A happen.
Jeb Bush's wife has some pretty serious baggage of her own, not the least of which is the fact that she is not American born and still speaks English with a fairly heavy accent. This should NOT matter at all. But it will.
Also, both have spouse issues. When it comes right down to it, I'm not sure Americans will want Old Bill back in the White House. He made George W. Bush possible. I loved Bill Clinton as president. Still do. But I can't forgive him for helping make A happen.
Jeb Bush's wife has some pretty serious baggage of her own, not the least of which is the fact that she is not American born and still speaks English with a fairly heavy accent. This should NOT matter at all. But it will.
4
So, don't keep us in suspense! What's your prophesy?
1
That's a very definitive statement considering there are so few others with much visibility, credibility or charisma in the public eye. Who, pray tell, would be the outsider?
2
Is it just me, or are these guys getting dumber every cycle? I mean, Scott Walker has to be the least intelligent man I've ever seen holding state office, much less be seriously considered as a presidential contender.
If this article is accurate, looks like it will be Bush vs Clinton all over again.
If this article is accurate, looks like it will be Bush vs Clinton all over again.
21
"I mean, Scott Walker has to be the least intelligent man I've ever seen holding state office, much less be seriously considered as a presidential contender. "
And how do you arrive at this judgment? Because he didn't finish college? While desirable for most, a college degree doesn't have much to do with intelligence. And that was 25 years ago, more recently he's been a successful governor of a mostly democrat state and won re-election 3 times in 4 years despite a nationwide effort to oust him from the Democrat party and the unions. I don't know if I will vote for him but that evidence from his recent past indicates he should be seriously considered a presidential candidate and a formidable one.
And how do you arrive at this judgment? Because he didn't finish college? While desirable for most, a college degree doesn't have much to do with intelligence. And that was 25 years ago, more recently he's been a successful governor of a mostly democrat state and won re-election 3 times in 4 years despite a nationwide effort to oust him from the Democrat party and the unions. I don't know if I will vote for him but that evidence from his recent past indicates he should be seriously considered a presidential candidate and a formidable one.
1
His state is failing and he can't seem to answer the questions. Next.
4
Rand Paul has a medical degree from Duke, and Alan Dershowitz describes Ted Cruz as "off the charts brilliant".
1
The thought of another presidential campaign with these same bozos spouting the same party lines that we've heard for the last 35 years is just too depressing for words.
27
on the other hand, it should be great theater watching people like Cruz, Christy and Jindal, Walker stammer and trip and fall on the public stage.
1
Scott Walker is a dumb soldier for the evangelical wing of the Republicans. He has no chance of carrying the wider field, especially once people see his grunt mentality approach to fighting the campaign war ahead of him. Only Jeb Bush has a shot at being President, and he is a weaker Bush than either his brother, W., or his father G.W., who was the most graceful, moderate, and decent one of the bunch. Jeb is weakened by the lack of commitment from his wife and mother. Both are putting their game faces on, but are not really believers in Jeb' quest. This is not good for him. He is also weakened by being an older style of moderate Republican in a field of fake libertarians like Rand Paul and hard-core, blue-collar, good ole' boys like Scott Walker.
Hillary Clinton will prevail over Jeb Bush, but it will look like a squeaker right up until the end. The only thing many Republicans want less than Jeb Bush as President is Hillary Clinton.
This will be the most expensive Presidential election in history, much of it going to broadcast networks ad budgets. And Hillary will emerge battered, and women everywhere will rue the day they fought so hard in this ultimate identity-politics contest because both Ms. Clinton and ambitious women everywhere will get the sort of social and cultural push-back that makes what happened to President Obama and American blacks look tame by comparison. Buckle up for a rough ride, ladies. Being in charge is no fun.
14
"Scott Walker is a dumb soldier for the evangelical wing of the Republicans. "
Evangelical? I've never heard Scott Walker say anything that sounded evangelical to me. He might be but I am just saying I've never heard he was associated with right wing Christians. That is more Rick Santorum isn't it?
Evangelical? I've never heard Scott Walker say anything that sounded evangelical to me. He might be but I am just saying I've never heard he was associated with right wing Christians. That is more Rick Santorum isn't it?
Amen. It feels like ("white") America has had a collective nervous breakdown since Obama got elected. The hysteria will grow worse if a woman is our next president. Can you hear the cries about taking our country back?
3
"The contest is closer to becoming a true two-way race ... It may seem far too early to make such bold pronouncements"
It doesn't "seem" to be too early, it IS! All sorts of things happen on the path through primaries.
How about some real reporting on the issues, and less churning speculation?
It doesn't "seem" to be too early, it IS! All sorts of things happen on the path through primaries.
How about some real reporting on the issues, and less churning speculation?
12
Issues? What issues? That's surely the one thing that gets almost no extended discussion during the run-up to presidential elections. Apparently the issues are irrelevant in the face of discussion and speculation about who has what connections, who is being financed by whom, and...who one would like to have a beer with.
1
Will the Times do an article like this for a viable third party in the U.S.? Or even an article about ANY OTHER candidates running outside of the two main parties? Or will this country continue to influence presidential elections by insisting on reporting, predicting and analyzing the two-party horse race? The more the media ignores third party candidates - and it seems to be getting worse every election - the more the two parties exert control over the country, and that is bad for everyone.
It reminds me of monopolies, but rather than a commercial monopoly, it's a political one. Time to break up the monopoly, no? Are there really NO other options?
It reminds me of monopolies, but rather than a commercial monopoly, it's a political one. Time to break up the monopoly, no? Are there really NO other options?
6
and what party might that be?
1
yes yes yes. Please. How about a socially liberal fiscal conservative? It's really too bad we can't have more than a 2 party system, really.
But think of how many great TV channels we get to choose from, and .... and .... the toothpaste!
For examples of monumental breaks with past party systems, look no further than the current situation in Greece, Spain and - perhaps coming soon, Great Britain.
For examples of monumental breaks with past party systems, look no further than the current situation in Greece, Spain and - perhaps coming soon, Great Britain.
This is the most cogent, astute piece of political analysis I've read from any news or political outlet in a very long time. Excellent job, NY Times!
That said, as a conservative Republican, I can only wish that the "factional favorites" would go away as quickly as possible, as they are the ones hurting our party the most with the voters we need to crossover. We need candidates with both ideological integrity and broad appeal, which combination is hard to come by.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Walker both seem to fit the bill. But, candidates like Mr. Carson, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. Cruz diminish Republican viability with moderate voters. Their candidacies are factors in an equation leading to failure in 2016.
A split Republican party will guarantee a Democratic win. The Republicans my come together behind a candidate who is a compromise of the best of all party factions. Republicans who require ideological purity regarding issues like abortion and illegal immigration must realize that any Republican is going to be better than any Democrat even on these issues, whether you agree with them or not. It's a matter of degrees, but those degrees matter... A lot.
After all, which is better: A Republican who does nothing to stop illegal immigration, or a Democrat who grants blanket amnesty by Executive Order?
The media has created the impression that the Republicans are interested in putting up a right-wing ideologue rather than a viable candidate. I hope the primaries prove the media wrong.
That said, as a conservative Republican, I can only wish that the "factional favorites" would go away as quickly as possible, as they are the ones hurting our party the most with the voters we need to crossover. We need candidates with both ideological integrity and broad appeal, which combination is hard to come by.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Walker both seem to fit the bill. But, candidates like Mr. Carson, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. Cruz diminish Republican viability with moderate voters. Their candidacies are factors in an equation leading to failure in 2016.
A split Republican party will guarantee a Democratic win. The Republicans my come together behind a candidate who is a compromise of the best of all party factions. Republicans who require ideological purity regarding issues like abortion and illegal immigration must realize that any Republican is going to be better than any Democrat even on these issues, whether you agree with them or not. It's a matter of degrees, but those degrees matter... A lot.
After all, which is better: A Republican who does nothing to stop illegal immigration, or a Democrat who grants blanket amnesty by Executive Order?
The media has created the impression that the Republicans are interested in putting up a right-wing ideologue rather than a viable candidate. I hope the primaries prove the media wrong.
1
Well, OK, you say you don't want a right-wing ideologue, although you started out by saying "We need candidates with both ideological integrity and broad appeal, which combination is hard to come by." So you want an ideologue who isn't an ideologue?
If you want an ideologue with broad appeal, you are basically saying that you want most people to agree with your preferred ideology. And I would agree, I would also like leaders who align with my own personal "ideology". But I am not we, so I don't expect to be represented by somebody who supports my list of issues with "integrity" (better "purity"). That would simply be wishful thinking.
If you want an ideologue with broad appeal, you are basically saying that you want most people to agree with your preferred ideology. And I would agree, I would also like leaders who align with my own personal "ideology". But I am not we, so I don't expect to be represented by somebody who supports my list of issues with "integrity" (better "purity"). That would simply be wishful thinking.
1
If GOP candidates appeal mostly to poor frightened angry undereducated older white people, then we shall certainly have more poor frightened angry undereducated older white people.
10
The undecided 10% who decide Presidential elections tend to gravitate to candidates with a temperamental vibe that soothes their current anxieties.
George W. Bush slipped in on the wake of the Lewinsky 'scandal.' He was not THAT stupid and seemed amiable. He then ushered in the most devastating 8 years in American history--banality of evil redux.
Obama seized the popular zeitgeist after the horror at this rudderless presidency. He was smart, rational, balanced, measured.
Now with relentless obstructionism & disrespect as the main GOP policy toward governance (can they really keep pushing tax cuts & war as New Ideas?)- their field scrambles to find the best edge of anxiety to exploit.
Nostalgia, Liberty, free market fundamentalism, racism, misogyny, privatizing social safety nets - what will they use ? Can they sufficiently smear HRC to muddy the waters ?
Rand Paul is too weird...maybe like Dean...raises uneasy feelings with his temperament. His certainties play as fanaticism, not principles. Jeb is squishy.
Walker is dim & light weight. Rubio, Jindal & Christie are not presidential.
It is not about policy.
George W. Bush slipped in on the wake of the Lewinsky 'scandal.' He was not THAT stupid and seemed amiable. He then ushered in the most devastating 8 years in American history--banality of evil redux.
Obama seized the popular zeitgeist after the horror at this rudderless presidency. He was smart, rational, balanced, measured.
Now with relentless obstructionism & disrespect as the main GOP policy toward governance (can they really keep pushing tax cuts & war as New Ideas?)- their field scrambles to find the best edge of anxiety to exploit.
Nostalgia, Liberty, free market fundamentalism, racism, misogyny, privatizing social safety nets - what will they use ? Can they sufficiently smear HRC to muddy the waters ?
Rand Paul is too weird...maybe like Dean...raises uneasy feelings with his temperament. His certainties play as fanaticism, not principles. Jeb is squishy.
Walker is dim & light weight. Rubio, Jindal & Christie are not presidential.
It is not about policy.
15
Rubio is only 43. Too young in my opinion. I know Kennedy was 43, but . . .
maybe I'm being agist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age
maybe I'm being agist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age
What a very sad state of affairs our political system is in. Where are the people who really were devoted to the people of the country. Hubert Humphrey, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Franklin Roosevelt. The current bunch just want to play to their far right or left bases. Intelligence does not appear to be a strong suit for any of them. Mrs. Clinton has been around a long time. Can't think of a thing she accomplished as Secretary of State. And while we are on Mrs. Clinton, how is it possible that her electronic communications, even from her "private server" were not sucked up by the NSA, etc. I mean really, to think all that information is no longer available?
4
To answer your question: those people got out of politics when politics became all about the money. And you can thank Newt Gingrich for turning the Grand Old Party into what we now see as the Get Obama Party. That's when I left the Republicans, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
8
You can sort the Republican candidates into as many categories as you wish but, to be a viable candidate, they will all demonstrate a public commitment to the GOP core values of misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, and science denial.
That;'s why Rand Paul is already tying himself up in rhetorical knots; that's why Dr Ben Carson, a brilliant and accomplished man, goes on TV to regularly make stupid bigoted comments.
That;'s why Rand Paul is already tying himself up in rhetorical knots; that's why Dr Ben Carson, a brilliant and accomplished man, goes on TV to regularly make stupid bigoted comments.
11
19 months out and I see a an attack ad on Rand Paul for a 2007 quote about Iran filling the gaps in the morning network news today here in southern NV.
The premise of this article doesn't seem sound.
We're a smaller purple state.
The premise of this article doesn't seem sound.
We're a smaller purple state.
The factions are too splintered themselves to cause any real havoc; Paul, Cruz, Carson will divide up the more extreme factions which will likely make it easier for the Republicans to nominate a candidate closer to the center of US politics. The extremists are in effect running to be the VP, the person who can supposedly mobilize the base of the party and deliver voter turnout. Jeb needs to not make huge mistakes, not say stupid things, and he will cary the day by being most palatable to most Republicans, even the ones who vote in primaries.
"A heartbeat away"...(shiver.)
This is going to be one long charade.
Each candidate is an oil company, casino, and bank marionette, with no ideas or even thoughts of his own. If he had one once (McCain), he's now whipped back into shape.
The Republican field does not contain leaders, only followers, and people like David Koch and Sheldon Adelson are cracking the whips. It's less embarrassing to them than to us, since the electorate is so easily fooled.
Each candidate is an oil company, casino, and bank marionette, with no ideas or even thoughts of his own. If he had one once (McCain), he's now whipped back into shape.
The Republican field does not contain leaders, only followers, and people like David Koch and Sheldon Adelson are cracking the whips. It's less embarrassing to them than to us, since the electorate is so easily fooled.
19
Much is said about Scott Walker's ability to get elected in a state that has gone for Democratic candidates in the past thirty years. What is unsaid is that Tommy Thompson, a four-term Republican governor from Wisconsin couldn't generate any traction at all in his run for the presidency. Given the strong rightward shift in Wisconsin politics (which enabled Walker to prevail in three elections) I doubt that Wisconsin will vote for a Democrat for president for some time to come.
2
At least this columnist focuses on the crux of modern US election politics - who the party elite, i.e. big donors support. Maybe we can dispense with all of the articles about policy debate, primary tactics, photo ops, TV appeal, etc. that serve only to make this look like democracy in action instead of the Kabuki theater that it really is. Just follow the money.
20
At first glance, I thought I was misreading the line "these factional candidates are particularly impressive." Then it occurred to me that Mr. Cohn has written a well-researched and presented political essay about why, really, none of these candidates is really electable. Jeb Bush, as the invisible leader, has marked out most of the funding landscape. However, he has seriously compromised his donors because they think they know where he stands on various issues, but discerning voters see his other side(s). The Republican nomination is really Mr. Bush's to lose, and he knows it. Gov. Walker, for all of the gloss on him in this piece, does not, will not and cannot appeal to a broader base. He is an undereducated uninteresting doctrinaire demagogue who is hostile to labor. White, working-class laborers (auto industry, steel industry, manufacturing) have retired. Now in their 70's or older, their place in America was earned through hard work. It's difficult to envision their willing support for someone who trashed the laboring class by comparing it to ISIS fighters. The other reasonable marginal candidate (Marco Rubio) is going to find himself on an island after President Obama forges formal ties with Cuba. Sen. Rubio's small capital will shrink as the elite cast about for an alternative to their preferred Gov. Bush, and Rubio will fold. Sen. Cruz Tea Party) is a shrill scold who proudly emphasizes every negative. The elite will work hard behind the scenes to torpedo him.
30
Look for a GOP candidate to say something like this:
"We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary."
Or look for the existing slate of candidates to uniformly call for Teddy Roosevelt's image to be removed from Mt. Rushmore if they are ever forced to say what they think of this quote from the greatest of all GOP Presidents.
"We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary."
Or look for the existing slate of candidates to uniformly call for Teddy Roosevelt's image to be removed from Mt. Rushmore if they are ever forced to say what they think of this quote from the greatest of all GOP Presidents.
11
Look for a DEM candidate to say something like this:
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."
-FDR
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."
-FDR
2
Ah, nothing like Scott Walker's misleading quote from an FDR letter declining a dinner invitation. Its been bandied about by right-wing media and some other parrots who don't provide the entire quote, look at source materials, or consider the most obvious historical context.
The missing part of the quote contains FDR's acknowledgment that Government employees want fair pay, reasonable hours, safe work conditions, development advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, just like employees in private industry. What about this? Does Walker suggest that FDR was against ALL these things, for both private and public workers?
Ok here's where the fun starts. Basic history: (i) in the great depression FDR orchestrated a MASSIVE INCREASE IN PUBLIC JOBS and restructuring of government, creating not one but numerous huge government agencies with lots of employees, (ii) various huge agencies were being opened and perhaps closed (because, for example, the PWA failed but the CWA succeeded), and (iii) FDR was well aware of certain thorny legal issues which - at that time - made public unions problematic.
So Walker's tactics include shamelessly trotting out the right wing's "preferred" excerpt of FDR's letter to enable him to aggressively disparage and GUT not only unions but public employees in general. Only people who lack a history book fall for these kinds of cowardly tactics.
The missing part of the quote contains FDR's acknowledgment that Government employees want fair pay, reasonable hours, safe work conditions, development advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, just like employees in private industry. What about this? Does Walker suggest that FDR was against ALL these things, for both private and public workers?
Ok here's where the fun starts. Basic history: (i) in the great depression FDR orchestrated a MASSIVE INCREASE IN PUBLIC JOBS and restructuring of government, creating not one but numerous huge government agencies with lots of employees, (ii) various huge agencies were being opened and perhaps closed (because, for example, the PWA failed but the CWA succeeded), and (iii) FDR was well aware of certain thorny legal issues which - at that time - made public unions problematic.
So Walker's tactics include shamelessly trotting out the right wing's "preferred" excerpt of FDR's letter to enable him to aggressively disparage and GUT not only unions but public employees in general. Only people who lack a history book fall for these kinds of cowardly tactics.
1
Great find.
I wonder about the chances of the Republican party breaking into separate factions. Some of the machinations in the House seem to indicate that day is getting closer. Small government types are not necessarily compatible with social conservatives are not necessarily compatible with fiscal conservatives are not necessarily compatible with big business sycophants.
I've really expected the religious conservatives to form their own party for some time (I'll never make a living as a pundit.) How the religious conservatives continue to be a reliable voting bloc and have so little to show for it on the national level (from their point of view) and still remain loyal to the establishment eludes me.
I am no fan of the Democrats either, but the story today is about the GOP.
I've really expected the religious conservatives to form their own party for some time (I'll never make a living as a pundit.) How the religious conservatives continue to be a reliable voting bloc and have so little to show for it on the national level (from their point of view) and still remain loyal to the establishment eludes me.
I am no fan of the Democrats either, but the story today is about the GOP.
7
All politicians confuse what is in their best interests with what is in the best interests of the country. Unfortunately, the GOP candidates almost to a man believe that their deep interest in "taking back America" (whatever part is lost) and whatever that means to them at this point in time seems to many Americans as just another way of dissing Obama more than anything.
What I find amusing overall is that they are still using Obama as a yardstick to measure what they find wrong and would radically change. Since the GOPers and a couple of other politicians went so far as to sign a letter to the Iranian leaders assuring them that whatever Obama did now could very easily (and the threat that it would be) undone once he was out of office it seems they should just tell Americans what they plan after 2016 instead.
Remember this first, however. What is in THEIR best interests is not always and often only for a special few, what is in the best interests of the majority of Americans.
What I find amusing overall is that they are still using Obama as a yardstick to measure what they find wrong and would radically change. Since the GOPers and a couple of other politicians went so far as to sign a letter to the Iranian leaders assuring them that whatever Obama did now could very easily (and the threat that it would be) undone once he was out of office it seems they should just tell Americans what they plan after 2016 instead.
Remember this first, however. What is in THEIR best interests is not always and often only for a special few, what is in the best interests of the majority of Americans.
7
The concept that the party elites pick the candidate still holds inspire of people like the Kochs who try and buy everything. Scott Walker is too controversial and anti-working class. Jeb Bush has it locked.
1
Billions will be raised and spent, acres of hot air released by pundits and "experts", political junkies won't be able to look away but only donors and operatives matter in the end. Go ahead people, enjoy the show.
3
Dude, you're gonna get flamed for not including an image of Scott Walker (I'm sure it wasn't your fault, though).
1
This analysis underscores that the brilliant and well-balanced citizens of our country are not going into politics.
5
The last sentence reads, "It will be fun to watch."
Fun for some. Scary for me, as I contemplate America's future with one of these people as President.
Fun for some. Scary for me, as I contemplate America's future with one of these people as President.
17
It looks like those joining the race early have the best chance. So anyone who is not in already is going to be left behind.
I see the field as having four serious candidates, representing various factions of Republican thought:
1. Scott Walker - blue-collar, lower-middle-class social conservatives in the Midwest.
2. Ted Cruz - intellectual constitutional conservatives primarily interested in the legal framework for the government
3. Rand Paul - libertarian conservatives opposed to military spending
4. Jeb Bush - establishment moderates who are willing to go along to get along
IMHO, this field does not leave much room for anyone else. All the good positions have been taken, and me-too latecomers will not get any traction.
I see the field as having four serious candidates, representing various factions of Republican thought:
1. Scott Walker - blue-collar, lower-middle-class social conservatives in the Midwest.
2. Ted Cruz - intellectual constitutional conservatives primarily interested in the legal framework for the government
3. Rand Paul - libertarian conservatives opposed to military spending
4. Jeb Bush - establishment moderates who are willing to go along to get along
IMHO, this field does not leave much room for anyone else. All the good positions have been taken, and me-too latecomers will not get any traction.
You give all of them too much credit. What you have written is what they say; what they believe and do is of no merit.
The GOP presidential field will whittle down to Jeb Bush (the establishment, moderate contender), Scott Walker (the favorite of the extreme fiscal conservatives who do not want any social spending programs) and Ted Cruz (Tea Party and evangelical base who always skew the Republican primaries by their turnout).
In an oligarchy, elections are always decided by political contributions. My money is on Jeb Bush who I predict will outraise the minnows and thereby winnow the chaff.
In an oligarchy, elections are always decided by political contributions. My money is on Jeb Bush who I predict will outraise the minnows and thereby winnow the chaff.
7
So many candidates. The Republican consensus must be that they have tossed so much mud at President Obama that a majority of voters will side the "not-Obama" Party. They could be wrong.
If the Iran agreement squeaks through and brings the promise of more peaceful Middle East and if the Affordable Care Act continues to work well and draw in the uninsured while lowering everybody's medical costs, those issues might be the deciding factor. After all, it is the Republican brand in the persons of all of these candidates which has denounced both of these initiatives by President Obama. And denouncing in the strongest terms, even to shutting down the government. Even as Darrel Issa has failed to find scandal in the administration he labels the most corrupt in history, reality intervenes.
Of course my line of thinking assumes the voting public is paying attention. So never mind. I am an idiot.
If the Iran agreement squeaks through and brings the promise of more peaceful Middle East and if the Affordable Care Act continues to work well and draw in the uninsured while lowering everybody's medical costs, those issues might be the deciding factor. After all, it is the Republican brand in the persons of all of these candidates which has denounced both of these initiatives by President Obama. And denouncing in the strongest terms, even to shutting down the government. Even as Darrel Issa has failed to find scandal in the administration he labels the most corrupt in history, reality intervenes.
Of course my line of thinking assumes the voting public is paying attention. So never mind. I am an idiot.
8
Scott Walker will never be the nominee. With more exposure and questions he will be well illuminated. A not too bright water boy for the Koch brothers.
11
Being not too bright never stopped the GOP from picking a candidate.
9
It's hard to imagine what additional exposure and questions he could get after facing the union and Soros-funded onslaught over the past four years, in which he won three elections. The truth is that the left threw their best at him, with national funding, and came up short.
True. Reagan was the most personable and dumb President in modern history.
3
The Republican party, especially led by young millennials, is becoming increasingly libertarian so I would not put Paul and Cruz on the fringe; one has a very good chance of a VP position on the ticket if they do not win the nomination.
Walker may not be "establishment", but he has broad support as Bush does. Their ability to get their message out and raise money will limit the field quickly and may force potential candidates out before they can even get into it.
Walker may not be "establishment", but he has broad support as Bush does. Their ability to get their message out and raise money will limit the field quickly and may force potential candidates out before they can even get into it.
If the Democratic Party had its own self-aggrandizing abbreviation, would The Times build whole graphics around it?
3
I think the GOP primary will be a series of theatrics to see who can show the most vengeance towards Obama, but not much else.
At the end of the day I fully expect the final presidential tickets to be Hillary Clinton and Julian Castro facing off against Scott Walker and Joni Ernst.
At the end of the day I fully expect the final presidential tickets to be Hillary Clinton and Julian Castro facing off against Scott Walker and Joni Ernst.
10
Julian Castro? I doubt that.
Who is Julian Castro ? Oh, I get it identity politics. No, that has been played out for a while
This is filled with so much fluff that it should be served with peanut butter - at least the Times readers could make a good sandwich with it. This is like the old H. Stern radio show joke. They would call people in the media and see if they could get the words "Howard Stern" into a public discussion. In this case, the game was to see how many times the word "moderate" could be used without using the word "Koch."
Reading about the contest over the Republican candidate, I couldn't help thinking about my trip to the drug store last night. I was looking for something for a toothache. I was surprised by the extensive number of "different" products, which went by vastly different names and came in packages with different colors. Astonishing how many choices we Americans have! But looking at the ingredients, I noticed that every one of them had a single active ingredient, and the same one - Benzocaine.
In the GOP field the active ingredient is API/Koch. In Florida, the Republican Governor has placed a gag order prohibiting employees from saying the word "climate." But I assume that they, like the Times, can say "moderate" without limit.
The GOP has important business to get on with, and there will be differences among these candidates. Its not easy deciding whether the prohibited categories of purchases by food stamp recipients (some 47 million Americans, at last count?) should list "cake" separate from "cookies," or should include all seafood and not just lobster.
Reading about the contest over the Republican candidate, I couldn't help thinking about my trip to the drug store last night. I was looking for something for a toothache. I was surprised by the extensive number of "different" products, which went by vastly different names and came in packages with different colors. Astonishing how many choices we Americans have! But looking at the ingredients, I noticed that every one of them had a single active ingredient, and the same one - Benzocaine.
In the GOP field the active ingredient is API/Koch. In Florida, the Republican Governor has placed a gag order prohibiting employees from saying the word "climate." But I assume that they, like the Times, can say "moderate" without limit.
The GOP has important business to get on with, and there will be differences among these candidates. Its not easy deciding whether the prohibited categories of purchases by food stamp recipients (some 47 million Americans, at last count?) should list "cake" separate from "cookies," or should include all seafood and not just lobster.
18
No, it does look like chaos. It looks like a party that is very uncertain of what it believes. A party that doesn't know where its center is.
They will end up with Bush, 95% certain. Mainly because he's a Bush. Just reinforcing the impression that it's a party that feels lost and needs to 'run home to momma.'
They will end up with Bush, 95% certain. Mainly because he's a Bush. Just reinforcing the impression that it's a party that feels lost and needs to 'run home to momma.'
24
Flip Flopping Flip Floppers: Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie
Holier Than Thou: Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson
Too Cool for School: Scott Walker
Israeli Lobby: Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Ben Carson
What Me Worry?: Scott Walker, Rick Perry
The Inflatables: Ted Cruz, Chris Christie
Whoa there, Little Lady: Rand Paul
Born To Raise Hell: Ted Cruz
Entitled: Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul
U Got It, I'm 4 It: Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina
Ignobles: Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul
Obama Derangees: Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal
Dividers: Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal
............
Holier Than Thou: Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson
Too Cool for School: Scott Walker
Israeli Lobby: Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Ben Carson
What Me Worry?: Scott Walker, Rick Perry
The Inflatables: Ted Cruz, Chris Christie
Whoa there, Little Lady: Rand Paul
Born To Raise Hell: Ted Cruz
Entitled: Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul
U Got It, I'm 4 It: Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina
Ignobles: Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul
Obama Derangees: Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal
Dividers: Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal
............
89
That just made my day! Hilarious!!
1
There maybe some statistic justification for the Republican line-up, but, the entire field I would define as outliers --- which do not win national elections.
8
“Candidates without party support have never won,” said John Zaller, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and one of four authors of “The Party Decides,” an influential 2008 book on the role of parties in the nominating process.
That is either a completely banal comment--patently obvious as nominees have to have garnered some party support to win primaries or, in earlier eras, been the selection of bosses in the back room-- or, it is daftly wrong, if the meaning is the backing of party leaders....
Otherwise, how does one explain McGovern, Carter, Clinton, and Obama's nominations!
----------------------------------------
In other news, for all the hand-wringing about the dominance of right-wing conservatives in the early Republican causes and primaries, and left-wing activists in the early Democratic ones--it's striking how almost inevitably it's the mainstream corporate candidates who prevail! So, why do we keep repeating the meme of the "extreme"?
That is either a completely banal comment--patently obvious as nominees have to have garnered some party support to win primaries or, in earlier eras, been the selection of bosses in the back room-- or, it is daftly wrong, if the meaning is the backing of party leaders....
Otherwise, how does one explain McGovern, Carter, Clinton, and Obama's nominations!
----------------------------------------
In other news, for all the hand-wringing about the dominance of right-wing conservatives in the early Republican causes and primaries, and left-wing activists in the early Democratic ones--it's striking how almost inevitably it's the mainstream corporate candidates who prevail! So, why do we keep repeating the meme of the "extreme"?
5
problem - most of the people in the GOP field have real jobs with relatively high profiles and they are providing evidence that they can't do the jobs they have now. that leaves bush 3.
15
The republicans have to get their act together -- and fast. They lost the last election (when this country had the highest rate of unemployment; was bankrupt; had an administration whose foreign policy is nothing but a disaster; with an inexperienced arrogant president). We need to correct all the mistakes obama has made (now including that disastrous agreement with Iran), and get this country back on its feet.
We need leadership - and fast!
Jeb Bush should not run - not to say he is not qualified. But, the name Bush has been blamed by obama for the past six years -- for all the mistakes obama made! Bush's last name is not a winner.
We definitely need someone to break up the Clinton machine -- a woman who is downright dangerous -- is that what they say -- hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
We need leadership - and fast!
Jeb Bush should not run - not to say he is not qualified. But, the name Bush has been blamed by obama for the past six years -- for all the mistakes obama made! Bush's last name is not a winner.
We definitely need someone to break up the Clinton machine -- a woman who is downright dangerous -- is that what they say -- hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
The woman scorned comment was weak.
1
Mr. Cohn must have been paid by how many words he wrote to describe the same thing over and over again. The GOP does not have a qualified candidate which is evidenced by their non and half truths that all of them espouse. Unfortunately, a large percentage of our electorate are incapable of recognizing truth from fiction because they are devotees of Fox News and other right wing media who are better spin artists than the candidates. The good news for us Dem's is the spectacle of the upcoming debates which based on prior history are better than any comedy show. Remember 9-9-9 and the third thing Gov. Perry couldn't remember. This is just the tip of the iceberg, so tune in and enjoy the show.
10
It's going to be fun watching the Republican Fat Cats do their best to force Jeb Bush down the throats of the party base. The fix is clearly in, but will the great unwashed go along again? What if Mikey simply won't eat the cereal?
13
While I agree with the headline of this article, the far more important issue to address is the so-far unwritten piece titled "The Democratic Presidential Field Looks Static. It is." While the Times seems to see its role as keeping readers abreast of what is happening in the Republican Party, little attention is given to the danger of Democrats--and an accommodating press--conceding the nomination to Hillary Clinton. Many Democrats feel that they would be far better represented by Elizabeth Warren, but Senator Warren just this morning showed real reluctance, during an interview on CBS, to publicly distinguish her positions from those of Hillary Clinton. (No doubt based on the unspoken premise that, should Ms. Clinton be the candidate, party loyalty dictates silent approval.) If Senator Warren sticks to her resolve not to run, and no other candidate emerges, (even let us say, Andrew Cuomo), we face the very real probability of a third Bush in the White House. This raises an important question: does the Democratic Party any longer have anything to offer the average American?
6
Warren is not ready for this position yet, she doesn't want the job and has said so.
I see the present field of the Republican candidates as very uninspiring and lacking any distinction. It is not better than the Democratic field at the time of Jimmy Carter's nomination or the current fascination with Hilary Clinton, who lacks the minimum qualifications to be the Commander-in-Chief of the military forces.
1
The Republican perspective will undermine their own bid for the Presidency. Shamelessly, the Republicans are liars and will do anything to win the executive branch. If Social Security checks are vital to protect old age Republicans have to be kept out of office; if 65+, to keep Medicare affordable health care, Republicans have to be kept out of office; if want an educated public, schools need adequately funded, Republicans have to be kept out of office; if women care about natural human rights and consider themselves equal to men, Republicans have to be kept out of office; if real jobs are crucial, Republicans have to be kept out of office; if LGBT care about their egalitarian rights especially in the case of marriage, Republicans have to be kept out of office. A Republican lie is trickle down economics, the wealthy will let their money filter down to the public through free market practices, this idea has been shown to be a fairy-tale. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/the-wea... While Republicans and Democrats both favor some tax cuts, Republicans favor across-the-board tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate interests. Democrats favor tax cuts for lower and middle-income and strongly believe taxes should be raised on the wealthy and corporations but sometimes favor exceptions for small businesses that create employment opportunities.
11
The Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton whether there are primaries or not. She is the safest bet for her big money contributors, and she has some. She is also qualified.
For the Republicans who are busy slandering Hillary will have the usual clown car of wholly unelectable candidates. There us the failed savior in Chris Christie, who is just too mean and nasty for middle America and too corrupt for the north-east. The Teaparty favorites Rand Paul who would destroy the federal government and make civil rights a state issue and Ted Cruz who shut the government down last time and will do it often will die on the vine for lack of money. Jindal and Rubio are not going anywhere.
So who is left? Bush, Walker or the mystery candidate who has yet to show up? There are a group of plutocrats, billionaires and CEOs, who among them will provide a billion dollars to elect a president, who along with a congressional majority which they financed. The goal is a true oligarchy and a corporatist state.
So who is left? Bush, Walker or the mystery candidate who has yet to show up? There are a group of plutocrats, billionaires and CEOs, who among them will provide a billion dollars to elect a president, who along with a congressional majorty which they financed and Republican statehouses which they bought, so that they alone will own the government. The goal is a true oligarchy and a corporatist state.
For the Republicans who are busy slandering Hillary will have the usual clown car of wholly unelectable candidates. There us the failed savior in Chris Christie, who is just too mean and nasty for middle America and too corrupt for the north-east. The Teaparty favorites Rand Paul who would destroy the federal government and make civil rights a state issue and Ted Cruz who shut the government down last time and will do it often will die on the vine for lack of money. Jindal and Rubio are not going anywhere.
So who is left? Bush, Walker or the mystery candidate who has yet to show up? There are a group of plutocrats, billionaires and CEOs, who among them will provide a billion dollars to elect a president, who along with a congressional majority which they financed. The goal is a true oligarchy and a corporatist state.
So who is left? Bush, Walker or the mystery candidate who has yet to show up? There are a group of plutocrats, billionaires and CEOs, who among them will provide a billion dollars to elect a president, who along with a congressional majorty which they financed and Republican statehouses which they bought, so that they alone will own the government. The goal is a true oligarchy and a corporatist state.
13
Very fine analysis, Nate. I was going to vehemently disagree with the title until I saw that you were the author. Then I prepared to get educated.
One of the side issues is a candidate's "disposition" in the party. Factional candidates rouse their factions and thereby scare the mainstream, but main streamers can have, uh, no position. In 2012 The Romney team just picked off the other contenders through classic fear, uncertainty and doubt, and Romney emerged as the last man standing; he did it by having no discernible, and therefore no controversial, vision.
Similarly for Bush in 2000. He had no vision, although he appeared as the, perfect, "Christian MBA". Had McCain won the primary he would have won by a landslide in the general because there were Democrats who would have voted for him.
So Jeb in 2016 is ideal in that regard. He can change his views at will. But as you remind us, he *is* a Bush. Rightly or wrongly being associated with $4 trillion failed wars and a huge market crash is at the very least a reminder of some things exceedingly unpleasant. Maybe Walker can successfully "trump" him because of that. He has no vision either except to fight labor. He hasn't failed at much, except of course at college, because he has done so little. Perfect.
One of the side issues is a candidate's "disposition" in the party. Factional candidates rouse their factions and thereby scare the mainstream, but main streamers can have, uh, no position. In 2012 The Romney team just picked off the other contenders through classic fear, uncertainty and doubt, and Romney emerged as the last man standing; he did it by having no discernible, and therefore no controversial, vision.
Similarly for Bush in 2000. He had no vision, although he appeared as the, perfect, "Christian MBA". Had McCain won the primary he would have won by a landslide in the general because there were Democrats who would have voted for him.
So Jeb in 2016 is ideal in that regard. He can change his views at will. But as you remind us, he *is* a Bush. Rightly or wrongly being associated with $4 trillion failed wars and a huge market crash is at the very least a reminder of some things exceedingly unpleasant. Maybe Walker can successfully "trump" him because of that. He has no vision either except to fight labor. He hasn't failed at much, except of course at college, because he has done so little. Perfect.
4
After the events in Indiana last week my perspective on Cruz's chances changed. I think he now has a great shot at the nomination. The conservative base or traditional America feels besieged upon and they are going to want someone that is an uncompromising conservative. They will have little patience for flip floppers or people who change their positions the next day after the media asks some tough questions.
Ted Cruz is definitely an uncompromising conservative, so much so that many in the party loathe him. The fact that Cruz raised so much from so many small donors alludes to how broad his base is even if it's not reflected in polls. If I'm Jeb I'm worried. If I'm Walker I'm brushing up on presentation and thinking quick on my feet. Cruz is going to be formidable.
Ted Cruz is definitely an uncompromising conservative, so much so that many in the party loathe him. The fact that Cruz raised so much from so many small donors alludes to how broad his base is even if it's not reflected in polls. If I'm Jeb I'm worried. If I'm Walker I'm brushing up on presentation and thinking quick on my feet. Cruz is going to be formidable.
5
The only question about Cruz is precisely when he is going to say something unbelievably stupid and shoot himself in the foot.
Presidential elections are pretty much decided as follows: 47% of the voters will vote Republican no matter who the candidate is, and exactly the same for the Democrats. So the election is decided by the 6% described as 'undecided moderates', and Cruz has very little appeal for those people because they are, by and large, sane.
Presidential elections are pretty much decided as follows: 47% of the voters will vote Republican no matter who the candidate is, and exactly the same for the Democrats. So the election is decided by the 6% described as 'undecided moderates', and Cruz has very little appeal for those people because they are, by and large, sane.
The only serious candidates with any chance of getting elected are from Florida, so what does that tell you about this field? I cannot believe this country will vote for another Bush, because everything that is now happening the middle east, is because of his brother's naive "Mission Accomplished" view of foreign policy. Chris Christie had the next best chance but his creative bookkeeping in New Jersey, will be exposed and he has been terrible for the economy there. Ted Cruz is the new Rick Perry. While not quite as whacky as 2012, this group will be whacky enough, although I will miss Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain and oops, Rick Perry.
15
Christie is the biggest (in every way) clown in the clown car. Party due to his "creative bookkeeping", he is more likely to land in jail than in the White House.
1
I suggest two new categories. One is the Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time-candidates. You can put every Republican candidate except Jeb Bush there.
The second is the Will Never Become President category and Jeb Bush goes there, because of his brother completely screwing up America and stirring the pot in the Middle East. Some of us do NOT have short memories.
The second is the Will Never Become President category and Jeb Bush goes there, because of his brother completely screwing up America and stirring the pot in the Middle East. Some of us do NOT have short memories.
61
So, why is Jeb ready for prime time? Seriously... Ready to play ball with the corporate, hedge fund managing, NSA, test-driven technocratic school reformers--much like Obama!
His reaction to the Indiana Religious Freedom Act (he's for it; he's against it, he's...all in just a couple of days) shows that he's not ready for prime time-- not by a long shot!
His reaction to the Indiana Religious Freedom Act (he's for it; he's against it, he's...all in just a couple of days) shows that he's not ready for prime time-- not by a long shot!
1
I wish I had your faith in this electorate.
Most of the mainstream media, including the NY Times, seems determined to re-brand JEB as a moderate, smarter version of his brother. I am worried that enough people will be fall for it and we'll have Bush 3.0.
Most of the mainstream media, including the NY Times, seems determined to re-brand JEB as a moderate, smarter version of his brother. I am worried that enough people will be fall for it and we'll have Bush 3.0.
From the article:
"Chris Christie (moderates); Ted Cruz (Tea Party); Rand Paul (libertarians); Mike Huckabee (evangelicals); Ben Carson (Tea Party); Mr. Santorum (religious right)"
Why did the NY Times list him as "Mr." Santorum and not Rick Santorum in the format of the other names?
Perhaps a younger employee checking the copy is making a sly reference to the Internet meme and the gray hairs are oblivious.
In which case, nice work younger employee.
"Chris Christie (moderates); Ted Cruz (Tea Party); Rand Paul (libertarians); Mike Huckabee (evangelicals); Ben Carson (Tea Party); Mr. Santorum (religious right)"
Why did the NY Times list him as "Mr." Santorum and not Rick Santorum in the format of the other names?
Perhaps a younger employee checking the copy is making a sly reference to the Internet meme and the gray hairs are oblivious.
In which case, nice work younger employee.
1
At least Republicans present a diverse choice of candidates to the American public. Not the case with the Democrat party, where it's all Hillary, all the time. Good luck with that. Some old political retreads just don't know when to leave gracefully.
4
That's incredibly funny? Diverse? They're all some variation of corporate cozy, war mongering, bigot.
12
the same can be said of Hillary Clinton.
A long list of bad choices is only 'diverse' if you're a Republican and those are the only sorts of choices you've ever known.
1
A very well reasoned and cogent article by Mr. Cohen. Yet I wonder why there is a comment section for it. The typical NYT reader is unlikely to produce any comments on this topic that are worth reading.
Guess I'll need to wait for NYT picks to see if the editors find anything worthwhile. Good luck to them.
Guess I'll need to wait for NYT picks to see if the editors find anything worthwhile. Good luck to them.
1
? Worth reading? Ever read comments on any Wall Street Journal article that were worth reading? Are totally predictable comments worth reading?
3
This article seems to imply that Jeb Bush is the clear leader among the moneyed elites and that the nomination is his to lose. In a comment below, the name of John Kasich was mentioned, and I would think that a Bush/Kasich ticket would be formidable since it would have a very good chance of carrying both Florida (Jeb's home state) and Ohio (Kasich's home state), both of which have proved crucial in recent presidential elections.
1
Agreed. Kasich would be a very appealing candidate.
"The strongest and deepest field in many cycles" my eye!
It looks to me like almost the same cast and crew as the most recent cycle, with only a few updates, like Bush replacing Romney as the leading man.
I trust that when the Clown Car finally disgorges its wacko bird passengers into the ring that they will, as usual, form a circular firing squad.
But considering the torrent of invective they have launched against the President, whom they had not heard of before 2008, I am not looking forward to the campaign against Hillary whom they have hated since 1992 when she was the first to correctly identify their vast right wing conspiracy.
It looks to me like almost the same cast and crew as the most recent cycle, with only a few updates, like Bush replacing Romney as the leading man.
I trust that when the Clown Car finally disgorges its wacko bird passengers into the ring that they will, as usual, form a circular firing squad.
But considering the torrent of invective they have launched against the President, whom they had not heard of before 2008, I am not looking forward to the campaign against Hillary whom they have hated since 1992 when she was the first to correctly identify their vast right wing conspiracy.
41
These candidates are multi-term governors and senators. To dismiss them with insulting language is not going to work, and in fact will probably alienate many voters, particularly the voters who voted them into office.
The only thing I will give the GOP at this point is that they have a group of candidates, whereas the Democrats have ummm ahhh nothing substantial.
Third party? I guess the gentleman from Vermont can be counted.
I fear that 2016 will be a choice between the least desirable "winners" and a government made of those bought and paid for by deep pockets and an agenda that will continue to benefit the few.
Third party? I guess the gentleman from Vermont can be counted.
I fear that 2016 will be a choice between the least desirable "winners" and a government made of those bought and paid for by deep pockets and an agenda that will continue to benefit the few.
6
@Julia, Looking back in time we see that many, many, Democrats who held office supported the war in Iraq. I doubt Gore would have kept us out of Iraq. Endless war is a bi-partisan policy in this country. Congress, and Presidents, see our military as their own personal toy.
1
Oh please, oh please let Christie or Paul win! They are just as unelectable in a general election as Cruz, Carson, Santorum or the Huckster. All of them would lose in landslides in the general election.
4
Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have relatively high negatives among all voters, but Mrs. Clinton has a steel grip on the Democratic elites. Scott Walker is very popular among Republican voters, and will win more primaries than Bush.
So, the presidential election in 2016 will be between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Walker.
It will be a very close election, too close to call. It might even result in a replay from 2000: the Supreme Court picking the wrong person as the winner.
God help us.
So, the presidential election in 2016 will be between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Walker.
It will be a very close election, too close to call. It might even result in a replay from 2000: the Supreme Court picking the wrong person as the winner.
God help us.
2
In reading this, it brings to (my) mind a look forward to the GOP primary debates, which make me also look backward to the '12 GOP primary debates. Back then Mitt Romney came out the winner; not so much on account of his platforms, but because of (outwardly, anyway) the comparative and collective weakness of his opponents, who were a collection of crackpots and zanies.
No guarantees, mind you; but at first blush, compared to Jeb Bush, his opponents appear to be the same kind of zany wannabes. If ( and I say IF) Bush wins, just like 2012, I can compare the debates to a 3-on-3 basketball gsme with Kobe, Le Bron and Stephan Curry beating three of the best women collegiate players in the game; the reaction being, "big deal, they beat a bunch of girls!"
No guarantees, mind you; but at first blush, compared to Jeb Bush, his opponents appear to be the same kind of zany wannabes. If ( and I say IF) Bush wins, just like 2012, I can compare the debates to a 3-on-3 basketball gsme with Kobe, Le Bron and Stephan Curry beating three of the best women collegiate players in the game; the reaction being, "big deal, they beat a bunch of girls!"
1
Multiple candidates gives the Republicans a great advantage over the Democrats. The Democrats have almost one candidate, Hillary Clinton. They have many, getting out that Republican-type (looney) message all over the country.
The weakness of the Democratic Party is displayed by how few candidates from this party there are. A Party past being in crisis. It is in severe decline. While Obama was a great president in many ways, he never stood up to the Republicans until he had already been shoved to the ground multiple times. And the Party has never stood up again. This party needs intense rehabilitation if it is going to counter the Republican disease that infects and despoils this country.
The weakness of the Democratic Party is displayed by how few candidates from this party there are. A Party past being in crisis. It is in severe decline. While Obama was a great president in many ways, he never stood up to the Republicans until he had already been shoved to the ground multiple times. And the Party has never stood up again. This party needs intense rehabilitation if it is going to counter the Republican disease that infects and despoils this country.
7
Having a single candidate would only be relevant in that alternative universe where fund raising is critical to getting elected, and where party elects want to narrow the field as early as possible to leverage their funds. I'm sure glad we don't live there!
Come on, get a grip, this fake beauty contest is a media show designed to keep people from realizing there are no real differences among that crop. Put someone with Teddy Roosevelt's viewpoints in there and he'd be shot as a communist immediately: "The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows."
Come on, get a grip, this fake beauty contest is a media show designed to keep people from realizing there are no real differences among that crop. Put someone with Teddy Roosevelt's viewpoints in there and he'd be shot as a communist immediately: "The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows."
1
Closet Theorist: when one adds up expenditures per candidate, that is one of the reasons why the Republicans outspend Democrats, they have more candidates. Check out the data.
My biggest fear after the last presidential election was that the Republicans would get the message and start fielding candidates with moderate and reasoned views on the issues, someone I might even consider voting for.
I no longer have that fear.....
I no longer have that fear.....
59
Um, why is that?
What issues have the Republican party stood for in the last, at least, 20 years, that you've agreed with? Other than unending war, banning abortion, zero taxation, and a federal government with *only* a defense department, this party has been bankrupt of ideas. (If you call those "ideas." I don't.)
This is the problem. We need to stop voting for "personalities" (this isn't a beauty pageant) and start voting according to where a candidate and his (or her) party stands on the issues.
What issues have the Republican party stood for in the last, at least, 20 years, that you've agreed with? Other than unending war, banning abortion, zero taxation, and a federal government with *only* a defense department, this party has been bankrupt of ideas. (If you call those "ideas." I don't.)
This is the problem. We need to stop voting for "personalities" (this isn't a beauty pageant) and start voting according to where a candidate and his (or her) party stands on the issues.
2
They all just look like a bunch of clowns to me.....I will NEVER vote for another Republican ever again.
84
Not so much because they look like a bunch of clowns, but because they would dig a huge mass grave and throw us common folk into it!
2016 could likely be the nail in the coffin of America's greatness as a nation. Only money and power count, the "little person" has no real say in the political system. The fall of a once great nation in 2016 will give historians much to write about and what they write won't be good.
6
Why omit Carly Fiorina? Unconscious male bias?
3
How could anyone take Fiorina seriously as a candidate? Do they forget what she did to HP? With this field how can anyone take any republican candidate seriously?
14
Conscious GOP male/southern/religious bias. Maybe as a laughable VP choice like Palin. If you think she's got a serious chance with the GOP as a Presidential candidate you should pay pal someone some money for that Bridge in lower Manhattan.
1
I'm surprised not to see the name of Ralph Nader on the list of factional favorite examples. He must be the epitome of someone who never had a chance to win, but siphoned off enough votes to shape the election. But for him, we could have avoided the debacle that was W. What would the country look like today if Gore had won?
24
Not just the country. What would the world look like today if we hadn't invaded Iraq and if we had made a serious effort to start fighting climate change more than a decade ago?
13
Don't blame Nader.
1. Gore won Florida. He won the election.
2. Gore lost his home state! He lost the election.
3. Gore didn't make adequate use of Bill Clinton. He lost the election.
4. Gore got into new age advice. He lost the election.
5. Gore should have done better in the debates. (Grown men arguing over who would test our nation's kids more! Real leadership there --not--and look at how well that's turned out,). He lost the election.
Etc.
1. Gore won Florida. He won the election.
2. Gore lost his home state! He lost the election.
3. Gore didn't make adequate use of Bill Clinton. He lost the election.
4. Gore got into new age advice. He lost the election.
5. Gore should have done better in the debates. (Grown men arguing over who would test our nation's kids more! Real leadership there --not--and look at how well that's turned out,). He lost the election.
Etc.
1
The way I remember it, the election was effectively a tie.
Saying now, over and over again, that Gore "won" or "lost" doesn't change that.
Isn't the real point that the framers of our Consitutional system thought that close elections should be decided by Justice Scalia through an interpretation of certain Constitutional provisions (you know - the ones designed to provide black folks with equal protection under the law). As he's been fond of saying since then, we should all just "get over it!"
Saying now, over and over again, that Gore "won" or "lost" doesn't change that.
Isn't the real point that the framers of our Consitutional system thought that close elections should be decided by Justice Scalia through an interpretation of certain Constitutional provisions (you know - the ones designed to provide black folks with equal protection under the law). As he's been fond of saying since then, we should all just "get over it!"
2
Jeb Bush has money, an organization and a path to general election victory. His camp is already whispering the name "John Kasich" as a possible running mate. Only one problem looms. The base doesn' t want Jeb.
6
Huckabee to the rescue! Guns, God, Gravy, Grits, and.... Goofy (from Mickey Mouse show)
4
When "moderate" is labeled as only a "faction" of the Republican Party, that pretty much captures the essence of things. Whew.
54
Who are the Dem moderates? Answer: None.
2
I haven't heard anyone say that the GOP field looks "chaotic." The most common analogy that seems to come up has been to a clown car at a circus. And clown cars have to be highly, highly organized.
114
At what point will the issue of Ted Cruz being born in Canada be addressed for real by the mainstream media?
Being born in Hawaii is not good enough for the GOP but Canada is OK?
Being born in Hawaii is not good enough for the GOP but Canada is OK?
102
Cruz' birthplace is a non-issue: He is a natural-born citizen.
The first "birther" was Team Hillary. Why do you leftists persist in these false meme?
The first "birther" was Team Hillary. Why do you leftists persist in these false meme?
2
Natural born citizen is not good. He can run for any office except the president of the United States. Why can't you conservative - the self-proclaimed defenders of the constitution, read up on the constitution?
7
Birthers never were big on logic or the pretense of behaving according to the standards they set for others.
1
Nate Cohn reinforces the notion that we are decidedly *not a democracy* and about 0.000001% of the population gets to decide the nominee and eventual winner of the Presidency. Why vote? It's all about money & the back room deals, anyhow.
8
Voting matters. Selecting nominees may be in the fat cats hands, but voting determines the outcome.
2
There's a big difference between chaos and a free-for-all brawl inside a roadhouse where the proprietors have posted a sign that reads: Management Reserves the Right to Refuse Service to the Underprivileged, Minorities, the LGBT Community, and Proponents of Abortion Rights. Sooner or later, all of the candidates will be tacking right (down is more like it) to the so-called Republican base, wherein these base sentiments reside. What would Abraham Lincoln think of today's Republican Party?
34
scott walker.
i'm proud to say that a no-nothing lightweight like walker could never be a serious candidate among us democrats in this day and age.
i'm proud to say that a no-nothing lightweight like walker could never be a serious candidate among us democrats in this day and age.
10
Cruz, Carson, Walker, Clinton, Christie, and Bush, on jobs and beyond! See http://worksnewage.blogspot.com/2015/03/jobs-and-our-next-president-what....
This makes complete sense. If you want to run a candidate in a primary and he's pretty extreme, you have to fill the other slots in with even more extreme or irrelevant candidates. Hence you get a field that looks like Romney (the anointed), Newt Gingrinch, Michele Bachman, Herb Cain (really) Ron Paul etc...
The Republican Party's motto. "Sure he ain't great, but look how bad the others are."
The Republican Party's motto. "Sure he ain't great, but look how bad the others are."
21
Their policies are all the same; more to the rich and less to everyone else.
73
Bush has support of the establishment elites, and Fox seems to be pushing him...which is why I curtailed my Fox viewing.
Cruz impresses me for this reason: In a short period of time, he raised over $4 million. But the impressive part is that 90% of his donors are $100 dollars or less.
Cruz impresses me for this reason: In a short period of time, he raised over $4 million. But the impressive part is that 90% of his donors are $100 dollars or less.
2
Cruz will flame out pretty quickly which is fine because he's not running for President, he's auditioning for a lucrative gig at Fox News.
2
.. and how many of those $100 Cruz supporters are on food stamps (since about 47 million Americans are), who couldn't afford to make a $100
contribution if anything in his platform gets adopted?
contribution if anything in his platform gets adopted?
2
What is the political equivalent of a televangelist? A telepoltician?
Preachers are very successful at raising lots of money from small donors. This doesn't make them good at governing.
Preachers are very successful at raising lots of money from small donors. This doesn't make them good at governing.
3
The Republican candidates remind me of the hapless Washington Generals, the "basketball team" that was assembled to provide the appearance of competition for the Harlem Globetrotters, but inevitably to be embarrassed and look foolish in the process. They are their own Bush league.
26
I really do not care who the GOP selects as long as I get to vote against Hillary.
If somehow the Dems nominate someone other than Queen Hillary then I will vote Democratic as usual.
If somehow the Dems nominate someone other than Queen Hillary then I will vote Democratic as usual.
2
If vote for GOP then you are not a Democrat. Dah!
6
Interesting? Watching Republicans appeal to an ever narrowing portion of the American electorate that represents the party base will be interesting. How far right can you go in the primary and still be able to draw enough votes in the general election? As to Scott Walker, it is readily apparent that the media has completely ignored the actual results of his policies to the economy, environment, public debt, middle class families, and has his own party leaders questioning his actions as well as his ability to polarize an entire state in Wisconsin. Does America really want a failing economy and more polarization?
129
The people want the candidates who convincingly promise to satisfy their needs.
Money buys the think tanks and the advertising needed to convince people that the far right will do that satisfying. So they support the far right.
It's not that people are stupid. They simply don't have the time and inclination to do their own research. Which is understandable. Which is why advertising works in so many other areas as well.
Other societies have institutions and values that effectively fight the power of money.
We don't.
Money appears to be too powerful to be beaten.
Eventually the failures associated with the policies that money promotes will cause its downfall.
To me, it's obvious that the cost to almost all of us will be enormous.
Money buys the think tanks and the advertising needed to convince people that the far right will do that satisfying. So they support the far right.
It's not that people are stupid. They simply don't have the time and inclination to do their own research. Which is understandable. Which is why advertising works in so many other areas as well.
Other societies have institutions and values that effectively fight the power of money.
We don't.
Money appears to be too powerful to be beaten.
Eventually the failures associated with the policies that money promotes will cause its downfall.
To me, it's obvious that the cost to almost all of us will be enormous.
3
"Watching Republicans appeal to an ever narrowing portion of the American electorate that represents the party base will be interesting."
Is that why they won in a landslide in 2014 - not just in Congress - but also in state legislatures and governor races? Even "blue" Maryland now has a Republican governor. Can you explain that in the context of your assessment?
Is that why they won in a landslide in 2014 - not just in Congress - but also in state legislatures and governor races? Even "blue" Maryland now has a Republican governor. Can you explain that in the context of your assessment?
3
Republicans control the House, the Senate, 32 state governor-ships and even more state legislatures.
Facts, as they say, are stubborn things.
Facts, as they say, are stubborn things.
1
The analysis left out the anti-Hilary, Carly Fiorina, who as the lone female possibility whom surprisingly didn't even get a trophy for participation. No doubt she would be a factional favorite.
The Bush name has been so sullied over the past 7 years that the Republicans would be crazy to nominate Jeb, regardless of his qualifications, and supposed mainstream appeal. Everything bad in the world is always Bush's fault. The name is a liability.
Of course the most talented, aggressive and intelligent candidates are deemed crackpots and unelectable.
This will be fun to watch.
The Bush name has been so sullied over the past 7 years that the Republicans would be crazy to nominate Jeb, regardless of his qualifications, and supposed mainstream appeal. Everything bad in the world is always Bush's fault. The name is a liability.
Of course the most talented, aggressive and intelligent candidates are deemed crackpots and unelectable.
This will be fun to watch.
3
Moderates are a faction in the Republican Party? That's gotta say something.
49
They are fraction of the Dems for the past 15 years.
2
Fun to watch?
No it is not fun to watch Scott Walker run for president. Not if you're a Wisconsinite who used to love the state. No money for education, manipulative changes to advisory boards that oversee our economy, our environment, treasures of Wisconsin, John Doe investigations and so much more. Wisconsin is upside down, but he thinks that's admirable.
No money - his own words "Wisconsin is broke" but he's going to Europe now at our expense then on to Israel next month and already went to Britain for "trade missions" even though he has not even declared his candidacy.
We're footing the bill...all his bills, while he tries to stomp on funding for even our kids' education, the frail elderly and the physically and developmentally disabled here - the very ones who cannot even do anything about it.
And so much more.
Scott Walker has done nothing for the State of Wisconsin. Nothing. His claim to fame with getting rid of unions should Not be enough to make him president....but if people are silly enough to believe it - oh well.
If there were only a Republicanland somewhere where we could just send him, even at our expense, because he's never in Wisconsin, he says the dumbest embarrassing stuff - "negating Iranian negotiations on his first day in office", and he is worthless to Wisconsinites - the joke of a state that "Elected him Three Times in Four Years."
No it is not fun to watch Scott Walker run for president. Not if you're a Wisconsinite who used to love the state. No money for education, manipulative changes to advisory boards that oversee our economy, our environment, treasures of Wisconsin, John Doe investigations and so much more. Wisconsin is upside down, but he thinks that's admirable.
No money - his own words "Wisconsin is broke" but he's going to Europe now at our expense then on to Israel next month and already went to Britain for "trade missions" even though he has not even declared his candidacy.
We're footing the bill...all his bills, while he tries to stomp on funding for even our kids' education, the frail elderly and the physically and developmentally disabled here - the very ones who cannot even do anything about it.
And so much more.
Scott Walker has done nothing for the State of Wisconsin. Nothing. His claim to fame with getting rid of unions should Not be enough to make him president....but if people are silly enough to believe it - oh well.
If there were only a Republicanland somewhere where we could just send him, even at our expense, because he's never in Wisconsin, he says the dumbest embarrassing stuff - "negating Iranian negotiations on his first day in office", and he is worthless to Wisconsinites - the joke of a state that "Elected him Three Times in Four Years."
190
Thanks for saying it so well about Scott Walker. He is a total disaster and if he actually becomes a nominee and has to answer those hard questions, you can expect poorly thought out, ignorance of issues, and hatred of teachers and unions - why? Who even knows? People who vote for him deserve everything they eventually will get - a problematic America and more suffering.
32
you know heartsny, that is what I keep thinking....these people keep getting elected, time and time again, and not only in Wisconsin. It makes my head explode.
44
Well since he has been chosen by the voters of Wisconsin three times in the last four years your views clearly don't reflect the opinion of the majority of Wisconsinites. Repeatedly they have gone to the polls and supported Governor Walker's pro-growth, pro-employee, pro-fiscally prudent policies that have been a tremendous boost the Wisconsin!
2
Huh. How about more energy devoted to reporting on issues, that is, what the candidates stand for?
58
I would say that the candidate all stand for the same thing. Saying whatever they can to get elected. that is the case regardless of which side you are talking about. Tell the public what they want to hear and then work that speech into doing whatever you and your party decide is best for your own gains. The public does not have a say in the election process simply because there are no choices that are really for the public. The 1% crowd is controlling the rest of us no matter what ideology we want choose believe in. To think otherwise is to truly have ones head in the sand. I've watched too many ideological candidates become jaded after a few years in elected office in the last 5 decades of paying attention. The seemingly straight shooters quickly fall into the trap of the machine and magically become "one of them". The truly idealist candidates never even manage to get elected and generally don't even make it to nomination.
10
Silly voter. Issues don't matter. Money does.
5
No point. With the corporate media it is all about personality and horse race.
1
"The 'deepest' and 'strongest' field in many cycles?" I'm not sure I remember a primary cycle with such an appallingly low caliber of candidate. The Republican party appears leaderless and directionless, kept afloat only by the equally disappointing candidates on the Democratic side.
81
The Republican Party is "kept afloat" not by "the equally disappointing candidates on the Democratic side", but by the theocratic nut cases who aim for Christian Sharia law.
9
Maybe last time around was in competition for the worst field. Every four years they outdo themselves.
That's exactly the way the One-Percent wants 'em.
Dumb, unethical, pliable, and easy to manipulate.
Dumb, unethical, pliable, and easy to manipulate.
3
This article reinforces the view that citizens and party members have very little influence on American politics. It's all about the money and the establishment.
So we may end up with top democratic and top republican candidates both family members of recent presidents. I guess American exceptionalism these day means exceptional connections. That's true in both parties.
So we may end up with top democratic and top republican candidates both family members of recent presidents. I guess American exceptionalism these day means exceptional connections. That's true in both parties.
64
And then there's the media's obsession with republicans, their divisions ("Factional Favorites"?), etc.
There should be a similar analysis done, complete with measures, of how the media hyper-focuses on the republican race. Any republican candidate will have to navigate voters, his/her republican competitors AND a media obsessed with his every syllable while showing no such interest in the other party.
And it will only be worse this time around because Hillary Clinton is completely paranoid and secretive. And, of course, this is no need for a democratic "guide to the roles of this year's democratic candidates" since there are none besides Hillary.
There should be a similar analysis done, complete with measures, of how the media hyper-focuses on the republican race. Any republican candidate will have to navigate voters, his/her republican competitors AND a media obsessed with his every syllable while showing no such interest in the other party.
And it will only be worse this time around because Hillary Clinton is completely paranoid and secretive. And, of course, this is no need for a democratic "guide to the roles of this year's democratic candidates" since there are none besides Hillary.
7
Oh, poor baby. Is the mean ole media picking on you and your favorite "candidates", any one of whom would just ruin the U.S.A. and representative democracy. You already have ruined representative democracy.
Please note that you neo-Confedrates don't have a candidate who can beat Hillary.
The American Civil War ended exactly 150 years ago today and you guys are still not over it.
Please note that you neo-Confedrates don't have a candidate who can beat Hillary.
The American Civil War ended exactly 150 years ago today and you guys are still not over it.
32
@AACNY: It's fairly incontrovertible that there are multiple runners on the Republican side competing for an electorate with multiple conflicting agendas, and only one clear contender on the Democratic side. That's the media's fault?
10
So why do journalists act so blinded that they proceed with Establishment which has proved itself so corrupt anyway?