After almost a year of campaigning and discussion about Presidential politics, someone finally will get to cast something resembling a ballot very soon. The Iowa caucus will be held on Monday. While standing around for 90 minutes and then announcing your Presidential preference in front of a crowd is a long way from the classic secret ballot that usually comes with democracy, it's all we've got for the moment. So we'll take it.
The odd part is that so many candidates didn't even get that far. We started with about 17 reasonably well-known Republican candidates and five Democrats, and that number has been cut by a little less than half in the past several months. I can't imagine what someone like Senator Lindsay Graham is thinking - "I don't mind losing an election, but I didn't even make it as far as the first caucus. What happened here?"
This weekend, then, isn't a bad time to look at the landscape, and one particular point is striking. I'm not sure who said it first, but a political analyst once noted that the more upbeat, hopeful, positive candidate usually wins Presidential elections. Certainly that applies to races like Obama over McCain and Reagan over Carter, among several others. When in doubt, look for sunshine.
It raises the question - who exactly would you consider the candidate who is the most positive outlook this year? It's difficult to find one out there.
Admittedly, the Republicans have been out of power for eight years, and they need to make a case for change. That's been enhanced because some party members have moved deeper into the conservative side, and they are the ones with the most enthusiasm (more likely to vote in primaries) and the loudest voices. But the candidates themselves have fallen over themselves to be less than pleasant in the process. How many of them would you really like to have next to you in a bar sipping a beer?
Donald Trump might offer a more sunny outlook than most, with his slogan about making America great again. But that's only if the country blindly follows his leadership, and only if you aren't a Muslim. Unrestrained megalomania, even by Presidential candidate standards, is never pretty. And really, anyone that makes fun of someone with disabilities, as Trump did to a reporter, is beyond contempt. Besides, a New York Times story on Sunday points out that 1 out of 8 of Trump's tweets contain some sort of personal insult. I would call that a sunny outlook.
Even without Trump, it's a strange group of the rest of those still standing, who basically complain about the state of the country without getting into many specifics about how to improve things. Yes, some think outlawing same-sex marriage would help, some think spending much more money on military spending would help, and some think that essentially bolting the doors when it comes to immigration would help. I'm just not sure where the public as a whole (meaning next November) is in agreement on all of that that. And none of the candidates - Trump in particular - seem to think that telling the truth is particularly helpful. Even when factual errors are made, the falsehoods are simply repeated on the chance that people will believe them.
The leaders besides Trump are Ted Cruz (he's the one standing alone at the bar in our beer test), and Marco Rubio (the one getting proofed at the bar) for now, since they have done well in polling to date. Both seemed to spend the last debate complaining how our country had been ruined in the past seven years. They also turned to religious viewpoints every so often, which appeals to Iowa's evangelical voters, but has the effect of making those who don't share those beliefs feel like they aren't invited to the party.
Otherwise, we have Jeb Bush, looking confused as to why his campaign never took flight and turning bitter as a result. We have Chris Christie, who has a sarcastic New Jersey sense of humor that might not carry well in other parts of the world, and who brings up 9/11 enough to make him an updated version of Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. We have John Kasich, who many not be joyful but at least acts like an adult and thus worries Democrats looking over the field of possible opponents. There's also Ben Carson, who is clearly in over his head but is at least pleasant some of the time, and Rand Paul, whose libertarian views are heartfelt but not a great fit for the Republican Party. I'm not sure I would have picked all of these people to survive this far.
Along those lines, Mike Huckabee came off in his first Presidential campaign in 2008 as being the sunniest of personalities, even though a few of his ideas were odd. His rhetoric was more harsh in 2016 - even if on a personal level he seemed like a fun person. Maybe that was a small factor in his microscopic support level this time, although Ted Cruz was a new face in '16 that pretty clearly worked hard to woo voters from that part of the electorate.
If you are looking for relief in the sunshine department on the other side of the legislative aisle, there's not much help. Bernie Sanders is never going to be confused with a stand-up comedian. Besides, you have to wonder if anyone who was a member of the Socialist Party has a chance of winning a national election. Then there's Hillary Clinton, who once again came into the nominating process with tons of natural advantages (name recognition, money, etc.), and hasn't been able to close the sale. That's partly because Republicans have been pounding the Clintons for a quarter-century, in some cases with some justification, and it has left some scars. But she's also not a natural campaigner; her speeches have many of the right notes but no one hears much music.I once said about Bill Bradley that he'd be a better President than Presidential candidate, and the same description may apply here.
However, Clinton probably has the best case to prevent a reasonably sunny outlook about the future. President Obama never has been good at selling his own accomplishments, surprising considering his rhetorical gifts. But, the unemployment rate has done nothing but drop since he entered office. The price of gas is down to $2 a gallon. The stock market is way up over where it was in 2009. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have wound down, and Americans have stopped coming home in body bags. Millions of people have health insurance. Yes, the Middle East is still a mess, and terrorism is still a threat, but I'm not sure anyone could have solved those problems. In those big areas, the record could be considered pretty good. Clinton was part of Obama Administration, and thus can piggyback on some of the accomplishments as well as distancing herself from other aspects of Obama's policies.
As the Iowa voters get ready to caucus, I must remind myself that no matter how desperate we are for some sort of results, if only to give the endless consultants on all-news stations (where do they get these people, anyway?) something to talk about, Iowa isn't the best test of popularity. Ask those well-known Presidential nominees, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee. But Iowa can offer some surprises - ask Pat Robertson - and it's with a certain degree of glee that we all wait to see what might happen. Along the way, we'll have to see who has a smile or his or her face as we go forward from here.
Be notified of new posts on this site via Twitter @WDX2BB.
Showing posts with label Presidential race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidential race. Show all posts
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The speech
There is some talk that political party conventions have outlived their usefulness in terms of the national conversation. There is no drama at them any more, as everything presented is as tightly scripted as an infomercial -- in some cases, more so. Let's do away with them, the argument goes, approve the nominees electronically, and move on to the campaign.
That talk may have come to an end this year, at least for now.
I was talking today with a political insider about the subject today. We both agreed that despite all of the noise and posturing that had taken places during those few days in Tampa and those few days in Charlotte, something had cut through the buzz and made a powerful statement that changed the course of the election. In other words, to use the cliche of the moment, "a game-changer."
That would be Bill Clinton's speech during the Democratic convention.
Much of America was more or less split into two camps going into the conventions. We were in Fox News Nation or MSNBC Nation, to use shorthand. The election figured to be won in those eight to 10 percent that wasn't paying attention before. President Obama had lost some of his popularity, but some voters weren't sure if they ready to hand the keys to the White House over to Mitt Romney.
Then Clinton spoke. Within an hour, the argument behind the Republicans' attempt to win the Presidency was in shreds. The main argument has been mentioned here before, that the Bush Administration featured tax cuts and deregulation and the result was a financial mess. Why would we go back there? Clinton had covered a little of that ground in a very effective television commercial for Obama, but this was amplified. Along those lines, Clinton wondered how Republicans planned to reduce the federal debt when they talked about lowering taxes and raising defense spending.
There were other areas mentioned, such as a change in direction in foreign policy, and universal health care. Obama and his team haven't been good at defending these actions, but Clinton raised the issues nicely. The ex-President also attacked the Republicans' effort to do anything but stonewall Obama's efforts to pass legislation, perhaps noticing that Congress has an approval rating of about 13 percent right now. You get the idea.
The tide started to turn that night. Many people were watching, but others read about the speech the next day. Or heard friends, neighbors and pundits talk about it. Or watched highlights on line.
Where are we now in the election? Obama has a good-sized (at least five points) lead, according to the polls, in most of the swing states. Ohio's economy is doing well, thanks to the auto bailout, and the Republicans' ideas on Medicare aren't too popular in Florida. That makes the electoral math extremely tough for Romney, who hasn't had a particularly good September in other ways either. You might have heard about that taped fund-raising speech from earlier in the year.
Republicans, many of whom violently disagree with Obama on many issues, figured the President would be relatively easy to beat this year no matter who ran. Times are not good. But they nominated someone who has done little but come across as a "bored, rich guy" most of the time. His attacks come off as less than sincere, as if he's almost too good a person the rest of the time to put his heart into it.
And Romney always has been in a tough spot. He sprinted to the right in order to win the nomination, even though he didn't generate much enthusiasm. But that didn't leave him much cover for a general election that would be decided in the relative middle. (Then again, think Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum would have done better?)
Yes, something could happen in the coming weeks, with the debates an obvious starting point. But with every passing day, Obama's reelection seems more likely. It's another reminder that a simple speech really can move mountains.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
That talk may have come to an end this year, at least for now.
I was talking today with a political insider about the subject today. We both agreed that despite all of the noise and posturing that had taken places during those few days in Tampa and those few days in Charlotte, something had cut through the buzz and made a powerful statement that changed the course of the election. In other words, to use the cliche of the moment, "a game-changer."
That would be Bill Clinton's speech during the Democratic convention.
Much of America was more or less split into two camps going into the conventions. We were in Fox News Nation or MSNBC Nation, to use shorthand. The election figured to be won in those eight to 10 percent that wasn't paying attention before. President Obama had lost some of his popularity, but some voters weren't sure if they ready to hand the keys to the White House over to Mitt Romney.
Then Clinton spoke. Within an hour, the argument behind the Republicans' attempt to win the Presidency was in shreds. The main argument has been mentioned here before, that the Bush Administration featured tax cuts and deregulation and the result was a financial mess. Why would we go back there? Clinton had covered a little of that ground in a very effective television commercial for Obama, but this was amplified. Along those lines, Clinton wondered how Republicans planned to reduce the federal debt when they talked about lowering taxes and raising defense spending.
There were other areas mentioned, such as a change in direction in foreign policy, and universal health care. Obama and his team haven't been good at defending these actions, but Clinton raised the issues nicely. The ex-President also attacked the Republicans' effort to do anything but stonewall Obama's efforts to pass legislation, perhaps noticing that Congress has an approval rating of about 13 percent right now. You get the idea.
The tide started to turn that night. Many people were watching, but others read about the speech the next day. Or heard friends, neighbors and pundits talk about it. Or watched highlights on line.
Where are we now in the election? Obama has a good-sized (at least five points) lead, according to the polls, in most of the swing states. Ohio's economy is doing well, thanks to the auto bailout, and the Republicans' ideas on Medicare aren't too popular in Florida. That makes the electoral math extremely tough for Romney, who hasn't had a particularly good September in other ways either. You might have heard about that taped fund-raising speech from earlier in the year.
Republicans, many of whom violently disagree with Obama on many issues, figured the President would be relatively easy to beat this year no matter who ran. Times are not good. But they nominated someone who has done little but come across as a "bored, rich guy" most of the time. His attacks come off as less than sincere, as if he's almost too good a person the rest of the time to put his heart into it.
And Romney always has been in a tough spot. He sprinted to the right in order to win the nomination, even though he didn't generate much enthusiasm. But that didn't leave him much cover for a general election that would be decided in the relative middle. (Then again, think Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum would have done better?)
Yes, something could happen in the coming weeks, with the debates an obvious starting point. But with every passing day, Obama's reelection seems more likely. It's another reminder that a simple speech really can move mountains.
Be notified of new posts via Twitter @WDX2BB.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Decisions, decisions
We're almost through the first month of the Presidential primary season, and as usual, the structure of the system is achieving its goals. Candidates have been dropping out for the past few weeks as the electorate, more or less, has spoken.
Gone are Michelle Bachman, whose high point was buying a victory in what she termed the "historic" Iowa State Fair straw poll; Rick Perry, who seemed to have some good credentials but lost his chance of winning merely by opening his mouth in a debate; Herman Cain, whose run seems even more odd in hindsight than it did at the time; and Jon Huntsman, one of those people who would be better Presidents than they are candidates for Presidents.
The survivors, as Florida approaches, are down to four. We all thought Milt Romney would make it, since he was well-financed and had the more moderate wing of the GOP more or less to himself. We knew Ron Paul could "live off the land," as General Sherman once said about the race, and campaign indefinitely without regard to winning anything. Somehow Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum made it through the obstacle course to represent the far right wing the party; well, someone had to do so.
Santorum is fading, and it's difficult to see him having enough money to go much further along. I'm not sure that a candidate who talks about the "global warming hoax," is anti-gay marriage, and worked for the government to interfere with the Terri Schiavo case while in the Senate represents anything close to the majority of mainstream thought anyway.
That's leaving the Republicans with an odd choice. From the books I've read about 2008, Romney wasn't exactly personally popular with anyone in the field back then. He's made a decision to move more to the conservative side this time around. I'm all for people who are willing to change their views as circumstances dictate, but changing views on something like abortion rights for political expediency does make me wonder if there's much in terms of core values there. His great wealth seems like it's counter-productive when protesters are sleeping in parks to protect economic inequities. When Romney speaks, the words almost seem more strident than the way they are delivered, as if he is reading from a script but is merely saying the words.
Gingrich, on the other hand, certainly believes what he says. Yes, politicians have a way of saying that this particular election is the most important election of our lifetime, because they are trying to stir up the electorate. It's never true, because life will go on no matter what, but that's OK. This is a cold warrior, as they used to say in the Fifties. Gingrich does have some interesting ideas, but he also has enough odd ones (moon base?) to keep opposing campaign operatives in ad ideas for months. And if you are looking for someone to represent the right-wing base of the GOP, who better than someone who worked in Congress for years and hasn't exactly been a paragon of family values in his personal life?
I could see a lot of far right voters staying home, or at least not working hard, if Romney wins the nomination. I could see independents running away if Gingrich gets the nomination.
In other words, it's going to take something dramatic, like another recession, to prevent Barack Obama from winning November. Right now, his margin seems like it would be less than it was in 2008, but he's still a good campaigner with an army of people ready to go out and work for him and vote for him like it did before.
And I'd still like to know what someone like Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels are thinking as they get ready to fall asleep. How about, "It could have been me"?
Gone are Michelle Bachman, whose high point was buying a victory in what she termed the "historic" Iowa State Fair straw poll; Rick Perry, who seemed to have some good credentials but lost his chance of winning merely by opening his mouth in a debate; Herman Cain, whose run seems even more odd in hindsight than it did at the time; and Jon Huntsman, one of those people who would be better Presidents than they are candidates for Presidents.
The survivors, as Florida approaches, are down to four. We all thought Milt Romney would make it, since he was well-financed and had the more moderate wing of the GOP more or less to himself. We knew Ron Paul could "live off the land," as General Sherman once said about the race, and campaign indefinitely without regard to winning anything. Somehow Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum made it through the obstacle course to represent the far right wing the party; well, someone had to do so.
Santorum is fading, and it's difficult to see him having enough money to go much further along. I'm not sure that a candidate who talks about the "global warming hoax," is anti-gay marriage, and worked for the government to interfere with the Terri Schiavo case while in the Senate represents anything close to the majority of mainstream thought anyway.
That's leaving the Republicans with an odd choice. From the books I've read about 2008, Romney wasn't exactly personally popular with anyone in the field back then. He's made a decision to move more to the conservative side this time around. I'm all for people who are willing to change their views as circumstances dictate, but changing views on something like abortion rights for political expediency does make me wonder if there's much in terms of core values there. His great wealth seems like it's counter-productive when protesters are sleeping in parks to protect economic inequities. When Romney speaks, the words almost seem more strident than the way they are delivered, as if he is reading from a script but is merely saying the words.
Gingrich, on the other hand, certainly believes what he says. Yes, politicians have a way of saying that this particular election is the most important election of our lifetime, because they are trying to stir up the electorate. It's never true, because life will go on no matter what, but that's OK. This is a cold warrior, as they used to say in the Fifties. Gingrich does have some interesting ideas, but he also has enough odd ones (moon base?) to keep opposing campaign operatives in ad ideas for months. And if you are looking for someone to represent the right-wing base of the GOP, who better than someone who worked in Congress for years and hasn't exactly been a paragon of family values in his personal life?
I could see a lot of far right voters staying home, or at least not working hard, if Romney wins the nomination. I could see independents running away if Gingrich gets the nomination.
In other words, it's going to take something dramatic, like another recession, to prevent Barack Obama from winning November. Right now, his margin seems like it would be less than it was in 2008, but he's still a good campaigner with an army of people ready to go out and work for him and vote for him like it did before.
And I'd still like to know what someone like Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels are thinking as they get ready to fall asleep. How about, "It could have been me"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)