On the Republican side, Mitt Romney continues to campaign for the nomination while denying that that's what he's doing. His chances of landing it are, I'd say, fair to good. He's expert at straddling the reactionary nastiness that appeals to the base and the apparent moderation that makes for mass appeal. About all I can say for him is that he might have sense enough to realize that wealth inequality is killing the economy and that climate change is a bigger threat than Hitler was. In office, as a sure one-term president, he might be independent enough of his party to address these things. But I wouldn't want to bet money either way.
Chris Christie doesn't come across as extremist enough for the tea partiers, and he has the George Washington Bridge tied to his shoes. He's likelier to sink than to swim.
Rand Paul is exposing himself as a featherweight. His unacknowledged plagiarism scandal and his unacknowledged changes of position will make him vulnerable in a campaign. I don't believe he has the resources of personality or even of intellect to surmount them.
Dr. Ben Carson was all for his fellow blacks till he got rich and decided that being rich was a lot better than being black. He has the political amateur's tendency to say what he thinks, and what he thinks is crackpot and heedless of what most people think. This is undoubtedly understood by the party regulars and Chamber of Commerce types who have been taking on tea party candidates in primaries; they don't object to reaction, only to the flagrant quirks that lose winnable elections. Carson has those.
Ted Cruz would have trouble gaining traction because he doesn't make any sense and because his fellow Repubs in the Senate hate him because he embarrasses them to advance himself. And the fact that he was born in Canada wouldn't help him a bit.
There are more Republicans eyeing it, but right now it's looking like Romney again.
On the Dem side, of course there's Hillary. But a party that has to appeal to the young isn't likely to go for someone whose persona and attitudes are pure yesterday. She wouldn't be convincing as a foe of income inequality - not when she gets $200,000 for a speech as well as the most extravagantly luxurious travel and lodging accomodations. She's believably for upper middle class women like her earlier self as regards abortion, equal pay, healthcare, etc. But the poor aren't convincingly on her radar, while Wall Street is. Today, when no other Dem aspirant is very visible, she's the prohibitive favorite. But after a few attack ads, I think she'd go down like a balloon with a leak in it.
I sometimes wonder if it's possible that Bill and she know that she wouldn't be viable and are up to something that nobody has figured out? What we're seeing is a big, broad, very well financed and publicized movement to draft her for the nomination. So the campaign infrastructure already exists. Suppose she were to say at some point, "Darn, folks! I can't run. I have an infected hangnail," and then Bill and she were to exert themselves mightily to shift that movement behind a dark horse candidate whose election would make them kingmakers and prime movers in the new administration, able to deliver wealth and influence to their many friends? Who would that candidate be? I don't know, but if the person were also highly regarded by Mr. Obama, that would be an asset. Senator Mike Bennet of Colorado could be it. He's youngish, attractive, moderate, clean, relatively new to politics. Has he charisma enough? Is he a talented enough campaigner? Does he have the fire in his belly? Hard to guess as of now.
Martin O'Malley increasingly looks to me like another Jimmy Carter: smart, decent, maybe electable, but not up to accomplishing things in the current climate and staying popular.
Bernie Sanders is now declaring that he may run as a Democrat. We for sure don't need another Ralph Nader draining away liberal votes. He's a steadfast 100% progressive who says exactly the truest and most relevant things and says them in the most pointed and quotable way. And that might be his undoing. I suspect that what the people want is someone who embodies some ambiguity, so they can fill in the gaps to suit themselves. Like a porn actress, Sanders leaves nothing to the imagination. A more nuanced and elusive personality might fare better. If he can get the popular backing to win and keep it throughout his presidency, he'll be outstanding. But I have my doubts.
Jim Webb, war hero, former moderate Republican, and former senator from Virginia, might, as things presently look, be the contender who could most readily be nominated and elected. He has begun to run, not just talk about it. Whether his speaking ability and his personality can win him enough interest remains unknown, but he has time to improve his campaign techniques. It's important, I think, that the wealth gap was an issue for him before others cared to talk about it. He can probably run as a liberal and yet get moderates and some conservatives with him. As both a warrior and a critic of elective wars, he personifies the ambiguity and you-fill-in-the-blanks quality that Bernie Sanders lacks.
As for other candidates, all I can say is, stay tuned. You never know!
No comments:
Post a Comment