Of all the many Republican debates that are coming, the one tomorrow (Sept. 16) on CNN will be the one that is most important, in the sense of being meaningful for the most important role that a potential President must perform. The promise is that this debate will deal predominantly with foreign affairs and military policy, which are, in fact, the areas in which POTUS has direct influence (if not total control).
When it comes to domestic legislative policy, none of these candidates have anything worthwhile to say, but then, it is Congress, not the President, that legislates. Economic policy, you could say, is above the President's pay grade: though people seem to rate a President by how successful the economy is during his (her) Administration, the President has very little influence on that outcome. They can do a bit on the margin, as when President Obama's administration had to decide how large of a fiscal stimulus to advocate in 2009, but again: it was Congress that had to pass it, and economists who had to figure out what made economic sense. So, I really don't care too much what the Republican candidates will ever have to say about domestic policy (and what these candidates will say will certainly not be worthwhile).
In theory, there is no reason, though, why these candidates can not make important contributions to the debate over foreign and military policies--generally speaking, they are not partisan issues by their nature: though the desired military budget could be a divisive topic, a better way to think of it is whether a candidate's proposals for that spending make sense in the context of a general strategy for the US' presence and activities in the international arena. I say "in theory", because there are limiting factors that I suspect will be evident: the demands of the campaign may limit the time candidates have to prepare their ideas and arguments, or equally important, to understand what is going on in the world outside the US; they may have little interest in these subjects, or may believe that having mastery of them is not critical to the job of being elected; and then the worst aspect, that most of them seem to think the best strategy, at least as regards getting their party's nomination, is to seem the most aggressively, outrageously macho, making unrealistic claims about all the hypothetical missions impossible they will achieve. And in this, unfortunately, they may be largely correct.
Still, I think this debate could be a valid exercise, one which could demonstrate to viewers of all political persuasions which candidates are not unthinkable in the job. For, if they can do an adequate job of leading the country in its exercise of the critical leadership roles which can hardly be avoided in this era, the rest of it matters much less: the checks and balances in the other areas will operate. We need only to look at the failed presidency of George W. Bush to understand that the inverse of this statement is true.
With this preface/rant in mind, let's go over some of the critical facts which candidates should have digested in order to make some kind of respectable showing tomorrow.
Germany's Brief, Shining Moment
Though the deaths due to negligent or criminal refugee smuggling operations have been in the thousands in 2015, they did not get the world's attention until two recent incidents. The first was a truck full of dead people found just inside the Austrian border with Hungary a couple weeks ago; the second was the image of the dead 3-year-old taken from the water's edge near a popular Turkish beach resort. Maybe it was the racial identify of these victims (middle-class Arabs, as opposed to the predominantly African victims of failed crossings from Libya to Italy which went on for months, with little reaction from the world community), but for whatever reason, the world suddenly became aware that the Syrian refugee problem, which has been building up like a pressure cooker for four years, was ready to blow open.
Germany's heroic response was simply to acknowledge the rules which are supposed to operate in the European Union: political refugees are to be taken in, with an evaluation of the validity of their claim to refugee status at the earliest opportunity. Economic migrants are a different matter, subject to the member countries' policies, capacity to absorb them, with criteria favoring the potential economic contribution of the migrants allowed. Angela Merkel's leadership allowed a happy resolution to the impasse which had developed at the train station in Budapest, Hungary, a country that clearly was not following the EU rules. For this, Germany deserves great credit, probably the greatest moment since the unforgettable days when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989.
Wading into Mess--
('opotamia, as coined by Stewart, Jon)
The problem with Syria is that almost all the 4 million people who have fled from that country could claim political refugee status, in that their return--to the wrong part of the country, at the wrong time--would mean their likely persecution and possible death. The country is a gigantic mess and nowhere is really safe. Thus, unfortunately, Germany is rapidly coming to the same conclusion that other countries, less welcoming or less observant of the rules, drew instinctively: an Open Door policy can not be maintained, because word gets out and only makes worse the smuggling issue and quantitiy of refugees on the move.
I suspect that the Republican candidates will all have arrived at the same conclusion, whether it is through the route of economic fear of immigrants, distrust of Muslims (though that might permit advocating acceptance of some of the non-Muslim Syrians), or simply the dynamics of a volatile situation. The answer must be found, somehow, in the policy toward the multi-sided, complex, brutal battles raging in Syria (and Iraq), and that is where the full variety of their levels of preparation or sophistication will be demonstrated.
The extreme low end--which may not at all be the least popular--would be some variety of "just bomb them all into submission". I will be looking for the response to two particular recent developments: Russia ramping up its assistance to the minority recognized governmental regime headed by Bashir Assad, and Turkey (finally) entering the battle theater, attacking both ISIS and their most determined enemies, the Kurds.
These are complex problems for American policy: the Russians are working actively on behalf of the leading opponent of our foremost enemy (and target of our air attacks); the Turks activism has included a critical aid to us, its NATO ally, which had been withheld previously: use of the Incirlik air base in Turkey which will greatly simplify our anti-ISIS air efforts. Turkey has previously conditioned aid on agreeing to a no-fly policy restricting Assad's near-genocidal air attacks on its opponents, something highly defensible from a humanistic point of view but that would greatly increase the risk to American airmen. Further, Turkey has pursued its Kurdish opponents--forces we, and the world, rallied morally behind in the recent desperate struggle for the town of Kobane--with at least as much vigor as ISIS, and for transparent motives of domestic self-interest. President Erdogan's authorization of attacks on Kurds, though ostensibly in retaliation for terroristic assaults by affiliated groups within Turkey, appears to have the motivation of finding a way to disqualify, or hamper, the electoral participation of the Kurds' (legal) political wing in upcoming elections, new elections Erdogan called after his party lost control of Parliament due to the entry into it (after reaching a threshold level of 10% of the popular votes) of the same Kurdish party.
These variations--Turkey and Russia's changing involvement--are the critical ones in my view, because Turkey's military is capable of being a game-changer: it could potentially defeat ISIS by itself in a matter of months, if it chose to do so; while Russia has demonstrated great capacity for disruption (in Syria, and also in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Crimea...) There is also a question of prioritization: recently, the US has prioritized containment of ISIS, with resolution of Assad's regime (through the policy of ending it) on the back-burner. The "third force"--not ISIS, not Assad--has not yet materialized in a meaningful way. So, given the urgency of the refugee problem, do the candidates have anything useful to suggest to solve both problems in a reasonable timeframe? Anyway, we will see what, if anything, the candidates can come up with on these difficult topics--it would be somewhat impressive and sufficiently astute just to show some understanding of President Obama's posture on them and contrast their own opinions to his.
Other Questions of Significance That May Arise
(I wil send these to CNN in case they are looking for good questions to ask)
World markets have been spooked recently, particularly by the drop in Chinese companies' valuations. What should US' monetary policy response be, and with what objectives for world markets?
Our neighbor and largest trading partner Canada is heading toward elections which are currently a virtual three-way tie. If you were President now, how would you resolve the Keystone pipeline issue in a way which would not disrupt their internal politics?
It now appears Congress will not pass a resolution to express disapproval of the multi-lateral Iran nuclear deal. Given that it will now begin to take effect, what's your next step?
What is your stance toward North Korea's nuclear weapons, which that country has recently claimed are ready to be used to attack any country? What about your stance toward Israel's unacknowledged nuclear weapons?
Do you agree with the International Monetary Fund's expressed opinion that Greece's refinancing of its debt needs to include a some recognition of losses by its creditors in order to make it feasible for them to repay them?
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Monday, September 07, 2015
The Long-Term Game Plan
The truth is that I have had the same model in my mind for 25 years of where American national politics should be headed, a realignment that would allow us finally to get past the 50-50 partisan deadlock which our current format will not permit us to break. Frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet, but maybe saying it out loud will make it happen now--the conditions seem ripe to me.
First, the endpoint: a 3-party system with, let's call them: The Constitutionalists (Tea Party, Libertarians, and Isolationists), the non-ideological Middle Party (Blue Dog DINO's, moderate Republicans, Trumpocrats, and Trilateralists), and the Real Democrats (Sanders/Warren wing Progressives). That Middle Party might be the natural party of governance, but they would need the assistance of the Real Democrats or the Constitutionalists for certain purposes.
To get there, the first essential step is the weakening of the Republican party: they are taking care of that themselves (with the help of the interloper Trump). Hillary Clinton gets it started with a solid Electoral College win in 2016 and brings with her a small Senate majority, reducing the Republicans majority in the House. A good term for Hillary (despite losing control of the senate in 2018), she announces she's sick of it all and endorses a promising young (but not too young) successor, and the Democrats smash the Republicans' stranglehold on the statehouses in 2020, setting up a turnover of control in the House (after redistricting). Then the Democrats can start to cannibalize themselves, which would be the logical next step--it probably wouldn't take more than 6-8 years, so the evolution could be complete by 2028.
I actually think such a setup would make most everyone happier: purists like me and the Constitutionalists would have parties they could wholeheartedly support (I would be happy among the Real Democrats, for most elections). They would not be irrelevant; while the moderates, who are also very dissatisfied with the partisan polarization, would be much happier and could get down to BAU.
Getting There
The first steps, for 2016, are not really that challenging, assuming Her Royal Clintonness is up to the task. In the Senate, the Republicans have to play defense; the Democrats have to gain a net of four seats (with Democrats remaining in the White House, and their VP presiding in the Senate as needed), and there are plenty of opportunities. The best two are in Wisconsin, with Russ Feingold favored to win back his seat, and in Illinois, where the Democratic majority should prevail--with war hero Tammy Duckworth--over the slippery Mark Kirk. Next is Florida, assuming Marco Rubio does not bail on his Presidential campaign and to run for re-election, and there are good opportunities in Ohio, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. The trick, for the Democrats, will be that they cannot afford any slippage, so the races in Nevada, in which Harry Reid will be stepping aside, and Colorado will be critical to hold. Then there is the need to avoid a political fiasco in North Dakota, a Democratic seat which Heidi Heitkamp won somewhat flukily in 2012; she will be tempted to abandon her seat rather than lose it in 2018 and run for something else, like governor, which would make the seat a likely Republican pick-up in a special election.
With regard to the House, the cards are stacked against the Democrats; even with a wave election, which I do believe is possible, probably they could gain 20 seats or so and make it close, which would be useful for some legislative tasks. The big realignment would have to wait for another favorable outcome in 2020 (4 Presidential elections in a row for the Democrats would surely be definitive for a break-up of the national Republicans), and some heavy-handed maneuvering in the states. In the meantime, some tough Senate seats won by the Democrats in 2012 will be highly vulnerable in 2018 should the GOP get it together for a last-chance power drive.
First, the endpoint: a 3-party system with, let's call them: The Constitutionalists (Tea Party, Libertarians, and Isolationists), the non-ideological Middle Party (Blue Dog DINO's, moderate Republicans, Trumpocrats, and Trilateralists), and the Real Democrats (Sanders/Warren wing Progressives). That Middle Party might be the natural party of governance, but they would need the assistance of the Real Democrats or the Constitutionalists for certain purposes.
To get there, the first essential step is the weakening of the Republican party: they are taking care of that themselves (with the help of the interloper Trump). Hillary Clinton gets it started with a solid Electoral College win in 2016 and brings with her a small Senate majority, reducing the Republicans majority in the House. A good term for Hillary (despite losing control of the senate in 2018), she announces she's sick of it all and endorses a promising young (but not too young) successor, and the Democrats smash the Republicans' stranglehold on the statehouses in 2020, setting up a turnover of control in the House (after redistricting). Then the Democrats can start to cannibalize themselves, which would be the logical next step--it probably wouldn't take more than 6-8 years, so the evolution could be complete by 2028.
I actually think such a setup would make most everyone happier: purists like me and the Constitutionalists would have parties they could wholeheartedly support (I would be happy among the Real Democrats, for most elections). They would not be irrelevant; while the moderates, who are also very dissatisfied with the partisan polarization, would be much happier and could get down to BAU.
Getting There
The first steps, for 2016, are not really that challenging, assuming Her Royal Clintonness is up to the task. In the Senate, the Republicans have to play defense; the Democrats have to gain a net of four seats (with Democrats remaining in the White House, and their VP presiding in the Senate as needed), and there are plenty of opportunities. The best two are in Wisconsin, with Russ Feingold favored to win back his seat, and in Illinois, where the Democratic majority should prevail--with war hero Tammy Duckworth--over the slippery Mark Kirk. Next is Florida, assuming Marco Rubio does not bail on his Presidential campaign and to run for re-election, and there are good opportunities in Ohio, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. The trick, for the Democrats, will be that they cannot afford any slippage, so the races in Nevada, in which Harry Reid will be stepping aside, and Colorado will be critical to hold. Then there is the need to avoid a political fiasco in North Dakota, a Democratic seat which Heidi Heitkamp won somewhat flukily in 2012; she will be tempted to abandon her seat rather than lose it in 2018 and run for something else, like governor, which would make the seat a likely Republican pick-up in a special election.
With regard to the House, the cards are stacked against the Democrats; even with a wave election, which I do believe is possible, probably they could gain 20 seats or so and make it close, which would be useful for some legislative tasks. The big realignment would have to wait for another favorable outcome in 2020 (4 Presidential elections in a row for the Democrats would surely be definitive for a break-up of the national Republicans), and some heavy-handed maneuvering in the states. In the meantime, some tough Senate seats won by the Democrats in 2012 will be highly vulnerable in 2018 should the GOP get it together for a last-chance power drive.
Saturday, September 05, 2015
Act I, Scene 5 - Nuggets among the Sludge
Predictit.org
I begin with my new hobby/obsession: the website Predictit.org. It allows one to "make predictions" (i.e., bet), with real money, as the site maintains "markets" on a variety of election outcomes, which range from the next month's poll results on the favorability rating for President Obama, to the outcomes of the major contests in the 2016 elections, to specific primary results, and even to outcomes outside the US ("will Greece exit the Euro in 2015", "will the next U.N. Secretary-General be a woman").
The site seeks to fill the niche of Intrade.com, which was shut down by the government (and is now in a court case with it) because it was too much a gambling site and not enough a free market for free speech prediction. Predictit.org assures the website visitor it that it has been reviewed by the US government, is legal for Americans to participate, and enforces a strict limit on positions in a given market ($850). Which is considerably more of my own money than I am willing to stake on a single hunch or prediction. I am following the approach I use with casinos: purchase a nominal amount of chips, don't bet too much on any one outcome, and try to maximize the entertainment value.
One motive I have for mentioning this is that I would like to get more participants. Quite a lot of the markets are dead or close to it, though that does not prevent some rapid whipsaw moves, such as the question "Will Carly Fiorina be included in the next debate?" That one was settling in at about a 10% probability for a Yes outcome (despite the fact that it was almost mathematically impossible with the rules CNN had in effect), until the news came that CNN was changing the rules--it flipped from 10% to 95% overnight. Right now the market that is very sensitive to daily news updates is the question of whether Obama will veto a bill from Congress to express its disapproval of the Iran nuclear deal. It all revolves on whether the White House and opponents of the bill can muster 41 votes to filibuster the bill until September 17, and the count of votes is coming down to the wire.
One area that seems to be easy money, though I am stepping into it cautiously, is the bidding on the Republican who will get the nomination. There are 20 possible candidates listed--all the announced ones, except Jim Gilmore, plus Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, and Susana Martinez. What caught my curiosity is that the current market prices for the Yes propositions for all 20 add up to 220%; therefore, there must be money to be made betting against them. One has to take into account the 10% of profits the website keeps, and the fact that one of them, presumably, will win it, but the "Just Bet No" strategy seems--unlike the Republican poll leader--not to be a likely loser.
Speaking of the Wherever Man, the Predictit.org market is struggling with the question whether to take his chances seriously or not--from the comments and the various bids, there are two schools of thought, which makes a market--I'm on the No side. Right now, Trump is in second, just ahead of Marco Rubio, but a fair distance behind the betting favorite, Jeb Bush. The rest of the top 11 correspond to those who will be in the CNN debate, in the following order, after Rubio: Carson, Kasich, Walker, Cruz, Fiorina, Paul, Christie, Huckabee. I can't argue with the rank order too much (once one accepts the argument for Bush on top and Trump second), but the point estimates are all too high. Except one of them, the one that will prove to be the winner, and while I have my opinion which that is, so do all the other participants have their betting favorites, and that's what seems to be keeping the bids so high.
Preview of Upcoming Scenes
I am now ready to predict the course of the first phase of the Republican primaries (they should be one of the main topics for Act II, Scenes 1 and 2). I sometimes try to calm my fellow Americans who are freaking about The National Embarrassment Which Is Trump's Candidacy, pointing out that no real damage has been done yet; he doesn't have a single vote. Nevertheless, I anticipate that Trump will probably win both of the whiter-than-white, entitled (with an outsized sense of their own importance) electorates in Iowa and New Hampshire with 25-30% of the vote. He will start to get some bad news in South Carolina and Nevada, as his spiel starts to get stale, and the voters get turned off. The so-called "SEC primary" on March 1 will bring a couple of others up to his level or above, which will set up the race for a decisive confrontation in the winner-take-all primary in Florida March 15: Bush, Trump, and Rubio. The winner in that one will be the front-runner for the busy final phase of primaries, though it does not mean, this time around when there may still be so many candidates (due to the dynamics driven by the variety of big-money sponsorships) and so much uncertainty, that the front-runner will win this time (that will be Act II, Scenes 2 and 3).
Though I am far from convinced that anything of world-historical importance has happened or will happen in the Republican nomination race, I have to admit that its entertainment value is high. CNN made a smart move to change its rules and weight more heavily the more recent polls, thus bringing Fiorina into the next debate (but somehow not excluding anyone). Everyone saluted the increased interest; nobody seemed to have a problem with it. Fiorina will add some variety to the debate pool, but I think she should be fairly easy to make look bad, with her somewhat unsuccessful track record.
By contrast to her, and to Trump, is the very successful political neophyte Ben Carson, the new Flavor of the Month. I will avoid patronizing or politically incorrect comment on Carson except to say I am amazed at how much support he has gotten with very little publicity. His comments on the Fox debate stage suggest he has a lot of smarts, a dose of good manners, and common sense, until he gets onto the topic of political ideology, when he says idiotic things. It will be a good test whether he can hold his own in the foreign-affairs-focused CNN debate format, though if he is a quick study, he might make provincial lightweights like Walker (and Trump) look silly. The foreign-affairs topic will be tricky for these Republicans, who have to mix sufficient macho (or macha) aggressiveness without scaring people--even Republicans are war-weary. The phrase we should expect to hear most will be "...to keep Americans at home safe".
The Other Race
At the end of the day, the safe bet is that the Democratic race will provide Hillary Clinton with a sufficient, but not excessive, level of difficulty, which will require her to pay attention, develop her arguments and refurbish her debating skills. I don't really agree with Martin O'Malley, who is hungry for free media, that more than six debates should be needed. At this point I see nothing which should derail her from winning the nomination and, ultimately, handing the exhausted nominee of a weakened Republican party a sharp defeat in the general election. For that reason, I anticipate giving her my full endorsement.
But not just yet. It's not Bernie Sanders that is holding me back--I thoroughly appreciate his Jesse-Jackson-in-1988-like run; he is producing the political planks for the party, the forward-thinking arguments which are likely to be debated for the next 10-20 years before they are finally enacted. I would be glad to give Bernie a grassroots-style donation or two in a couple of months (though I am trying to keep from giving any contributions to any individual candidates until 2016) if it will be useful at that point to keep him going, but let's admit it--he is not electable in a general election (unless in that long-shot three-way with Trump running as an independent, in spite of his phony pledge), and therefore, should never be nominated.
It's not Joe Biden--I mean, not really. Again, I like Joe Biden, always have, though sometimes he has disappointed me (for example, he really bought into that law 'n order fad in the late '80's with the mandatory sentencing and all, from which we are still suffering, both in real life and in network TV programming). Still, he has been a persistent, steady warrior, mostly for good, and is generally trustworthy (though he needs to watch his overly tactile inclinations). His age doesn't really bother me, either, if he is able to take on the rigors of a Presidential campaign. He's drawing out his deliberations, waiting to see if Hillary's campaign will self-destruct, and while he can afford to wait awhile yet, passing up final dates maybe for a couple of early primaries he would be unlikely to win anway, the whole thing is resolving itself extremely slowly, and he will have to either risk it or give it up by end of October.
He's a-biding his time (while Clinton's abiding the hours, with Huma Abedin keeping Clinton's watch for her), waiting to see if Hillary can handle this email kerfuffle, a somewhat silly Something to Torture Hillary About topic that she hasn't been able to put away. There seems to be no criminal intent, no real harm done, a lot of flaws in our government's information security regime exposed, but it's a dripping kind of torture that seems to be preventing her campaign from getting into gear. It's still up to (or down to) HRC; is she up to the job of running effectively for it?
But it's still very early; I still say nothing has happened yet--in either race. As dramas go, this one is slow to build, but there's a lot of colorful costumes and snappy dialogue.
I begin with my new hobby/obsession: the website Predictit.org. It allows one to "make predictions" (i.e., bet), with real money, as the site maintains "markets" on a variety of election outcomes, which range from the next month's poll results on the favorability rating for President Obama, to the outcomes of the major contests in the 2016 elections, to specific primary results, and even to outcomes outside the US ("will Greece exit the Euro in 2015", "will the next U.N. Secretary-General be a woman").
The site seeks to fill the niche of Intrade.com, which was shut down by the government (and is now in a court case with it) because it was too much a gambling site and not enough a free market for free speech prediction. Predictit.org assures the website visitor it that it has been reviewed by the US government, is legal for Americans to participate, and enforces a strict limit on positions in a given market ($850). Which is considerably more of my own money than I am willing to stake on a single hunch or prediction. I am following the approach I use with casinos: purchase a nominal amount of chips, don't bet too much on any one outcome, and try to maximize the entertainment value.
One motive I have for mentioning this is that I would like to get more participants. Quite a lot of the markets are dead or close to it, though that does not prevent some rapid whipsaw moves, such as the question "Will Carly Fiorina be included in the next debate?" That one was settling in at about a 10% probability for a Yes outcome (despite the fact that it was almost mathematically impossible with the rules CNN had in effect), until the news came that CNN was changing the rules--it flipped from 10% to 95% overnight. Right now the market that is very sensitive to daily news updates is the question of whether Obama will veto a bill from Congress to express its disapproval of the Iran nuclear deal. It all revolves on whether the White House and opponents of the bill can muster 41 votes to filibuster the bill until September 17, and the count of votes is coming down to the wire.
One area that seems to be easy money, though I am stepping into it cautiously, is the bidding on the Republican who will get the nomination. There are 20 possible candidates listed--all the announced ones, except Jim Gilmore, plus Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, and Susana Martinez. What caught my curiosity is that the current market prices for the Yes propositions for all 20 add up to 220%; therefore, there must be money to be made betting against them. One has to take into account the 10% of profits the website keeps, and the fact that one of them, presumably, will win it, but the "Just Bet No" strategy seems--unlike the Republican poll leader--not to be a likely loser.
Speaking of the Wherever Man, the Predictit.org market is struggling with the question whether to take his chances seriously or not--from the comments and the various bids, there are two schools of thought, which makes a market--I'm on the No side. Right now, Trump is in second, just ahead of Marco Rubio, but a fair distance behind the betting favorite, Jeb Bush. The rest of the top 11 correspond to those who will be in the CNN debate, in the following order, after Rubio: Carson, Kasich, Walker, Cruz, Fiorina, Paul, Christie, Huckabee. I can't argue with the rank order too much (once one accepts the argument for Bush on top and Trump second), but the point estimates are all too high. Except one of them, the one that will prove to be the winner, and while I have my opinion which that is, so do all the other participants have their betting favorites, and that's what seems to be keeping the bids so high.
Preview of Upcoming Scenes
I am now ready to predict the course of the first phase of the Republican primaries (they should be one of the main topics for Act II, Scenes 1 and 2). I sometimes try to calm my fellow Americans who are freaking about The National Embarrassment Which Is Trump's Candidacy, pointing out that no real damage has been done yet; he doesn't have a single vote. Nevertheless, I anticipate that Trump will probably win both of the whiter-than-white, entitled (with an outsized sense of their own importance) electorates in Iowa and New Hampshire with 25-30% of the vote. He will start to get some bad news in South Carolina and Nevada, as his spiel starts to get stale, and the voters get turned off. The so-called "SEC primary" on March 1 will bring a couple of others up to his level or above, which will set up the race for a decisive confrontation in the winner-take-all primary in Florida March 15: Bush, Trump, and Rubio. The winner in that one will be the front-runner for the busy final phase of primaries, though it does not mean, this time around when there may still be so many candidates (due to the dynamics driven by the variety of big-money sponsorships) and so much uncertainty, that the front-runner will win this time (that will be Act II, Scenes 2 and 3).
Though I am far from convinced that anything of world-historical importance has happened or will happen in the Republican nomination race, I have to admit that its entertainment value is high. CNN made a smart move to change its rules and weight more heavily the more recent polls, thus bringing Fiorina into the next debate (but somehow not excluding anyone). Everyone saluted the increased interest; nobody seemed to have a problem with it. Fiorina will add some variety to the debate pool, but I think she should be fairly easy to make look bad, with her somewhat unsuccessful track record.
By contrast to her, and to Trump, is the very successful political neophyte Ben Carson, the new Flavor of the Month. I will avoid patronizing or politically incorrect comment on Carson except to say I am amazed at how much support he has gotten with very little publicity. His comments on the Fox debate stage suggest he has a lot of smarts, a dose of good manners, and common sense, until he gets onto the topic of political ideology, when he says idiotic things. It will be a good test whether he can hold his own in the foreign-affairs-focused CNN debate format, though if he is a quick study, he might make provincial lightweights like Walker (and Trump) look silly. The foreign-affairs topic will be tricky for these Republicans, who have to mix sufficient macho (or macha) aggressiveness without scaring people--even Republicans are war-weary. The phrase we should expect to hear most will be "...to keep Americans at home safe".
The Other Race
At the end of the day, the safe bet is that the Democratic race will provide Hillary Clinton with a sufficient, but not excessive, level of difficulty, which will require her to pay attention, develop her arguments and refurbish her debating skills. I don't really agree with Martin O'Malley, who is hungry for free media, that more than six debates should be needed. At this point I see nothing which should derail her from winning the nomination and, ultimately, handing the exhausted nominee of a weakened Republican party a sharp defeat in the general election. For that reason, I anticipate giving her my full endorsement.
But not just yet. It's not Bernie Sanders that is holding me back--I thoroughly appreciate his Jesse-Jackson-in-1988-like run; he is producing the political planks for the party, the forward-thinking arguments which are likely to be debated for the next 10-20 years before they are finally enacted. I would be glad to give Bernie a grassroots-style donation or two in a couple of months (though I am trying to keep from giving any contributions to any individual candidates until 2016) if it will be useful at that point to keep him going, but let's admit it--he is not electable in a general election (unless in that long-shot three-way with Trump running as an independent, in spite of his phony pledge), and therefore, should never be nominated.
It's not Joe Biden--I mean, not really. Again, I like Joe Biden, always have, though sometimes he has disappointed me (for example, he really bought into that law 'n order fad in the late '80's with the mandatory sentencing and all, from which we are still suffering, both in real life and in network TV programming). Still, he has been a persistent, steady warrior, mostly for good, and is generally trustworthy (though he needs to watch his overly tactile inclinations). His age doesn't really bother me, either, if he is able to take on the rigors of a Presidential campaign. He's drawing out his deliberations, waiting to see if Hillary's campaign will self-destruct, and while he can afford to wait awhile yet, passing up final dates maybe for a couple of early primaries he would be unlikely to win anway, the whole thing is resolving itself extremely slowly, and he will have to either risk it or give it up by end of October.
He's a-biding his time (while Clinton's abiding the hours, with Huma Abedin keeping Clinton's watch for her), waiting to see if Hillary can handle this email kerfuffle, a somewhat silly Something to Torture Hillary About topic that she hasn't been able to put away. There seems to be no criminal intent, no real harm done, a lot of flaws in our government's information security regime exposed, but it's a dripping kind of torture that seems to be preventing her campaign from getting into gear. It's still up to (or down to) HRC; is she up to the job of running effectively for it?
But it's still very early; I still say nothing has happened yet--in either race. As dramas go, this one is slow to build, but there's a lot of colorful costumes and snappy dialogue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
