Too Many Candidates??

[Sandy]

What is causing the pileup of candidates for President on the Republican side? One of the principles I remember from my college poly sci courses is that more than three announced candidates in a presidential primary is an indication of severe division in the party. That was from back in the days when three announced candidates in a primary race was rare.

I'm sure Mrs. Clinton will get plenty of excellent campaign footage from the slugfest that is already occurring among the GOP. Beyond that, I don't think conventional wisdom will provide many hints as to who will come out on top. Traditionally, the Republican with the most organized, corporate backing has sailed pretty easily to the top. Right now, the man with the money is Jeb Bush. He has maybe a 1% chance at being nominated. Recently announced Mike Huckabee has the same problem he's had before, and that is no billionaire backer and no money. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have some money, but there's no way either one could win a national election, not even close. Even though there's been talk, no one really knows who Ben Carson is, and there is no way on the face of this earth that the GOP would actually nominate an African American man for President anyway, not when it really gets down to it. Chris Christie doesn't have the backing of any small sliver of the conservative wing, and has too much baggage that could put him away in prison for life. I think there are too many candidates, and they will wear their donor base down at the exact time they need it to pull up. They will also put too many ideas out on the table, and the campaign will boil down to more anti-Obama politics, which will poison the whole well and keep any serious, viable Republican from winning.

[Haruo]

You may be right. I rather hope you are. Sort of. It's all rather sad I think. I'll probably give Bernie my vote in the primary, but I'm disenchanted enough with Hillary I might vote for a third party in the general.

[Tim Bonney]

When will the Republicans put up a non-fringe candidate? Other than Jeb Bush, who doesn't seem to excite many, those who have announced seem to be unlikely to get elected or even nominated.

[KeithE]

Bernie Sanders is my man - essentially a third party candidate.

We need a revolution for WE THE PEOPLE.

The press will downplay Sanders to do what they can to keep their corporate gravy train going. VOTE BERNIE! and draft Elizabeth Warren as VP in charge of domestic affairs.

And read Stiglitz attachment.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: I agree that the Republicans have too many candidates in the primary. They could learn something from the moderates approach to the ultra conservative take over of the SBC. But of course in our secular politics the major parties still have a convention where they select the individual who will represent them in the General Election.

It could change but I am still expecting to see H.C.to take it all. We still have 18 months to watch it play out.

And Sandy a candidate meed several well heeled contributes rather than a single Billionaire.

[Tim Bonney]

Keith, I like Bernie but he doesn't have a chance.

Why would Democrats vote for someone who has just joined the Democratic party just so he can get on a major party ticket? He also has little name recognition. In many ways I like his views better than Mrs. Clinton but I think Ed is correct, it is likely to be Hillary for the Dems and in the White House unless the Republicans can do better than their current slate.

The weirdest one I heard this week was Ted Cruz going along with the nutty idea that the US is going to invade and takeover Texas.

[William Thornton]

You yellow dogs and socialists are a hoot.

Scott Walker fringe? Rubio?
How is Ben Carson fringe? He some kind of 911 truther? He's a black conservative, rare but not fringe.
Huckabee has no chance but he's not fringe.
Fiorina?


ANY candidate has a shot against Hil. Lawd.

[Tim Bonney]

[William Thornton]

Half of US states are right-to-work states, including Iowa I believe. Hardly a fringe position.

Exactly what positions of Carson's cause him to be fringe? Round up a few for the uninformed here.

[Tim Bonney]

Did you miss where he compared Obamacare to slavery and the US to Nazi Germany? Mainstream? Not.

[Dave Roberts]

We Americans have the best politicians money can buy, especially since SCOTUS said that offices can be bought by the highest bidder--the effects of Citizens United.

[William Thornton]

Carson isn't a polished candidate. Show me some policy proposals that are fringe.

I'm still up for the thankless task of providing reason and comity here, my friends, in spite of my expectation that my mod/lib colleagues will trot out the usual Koch bros., Big this-that-or-the-other, etc. We have nothing to compare with Hil who cannot be trusted to tell the truth. We've only just begun with that.

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

Ed,

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... i-germany/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/politics/ ... omparsion/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/eri ... -comments/

How many references do you want Ed? Doesn't your computer have Google?

[Sandy]

Yeah, I think there's plenty of evidence up there already to show that Carson is most definitely a fringe candidate. He doesn't stand a chance at winning the GOP nomination, anyway, since he is African American and no matter how his quirky and extremist views appeal to the right wing fringe of the party, they'll never nominate a black man.

The suggestion that Scott Walker isn't a fringe candidate is, well, laughable. He's at least as extremist in his social policy as Ted Cruz. Rubio blows in whatever direction he thinks it will take to get votes. There are times he's fringe, depending on the issue, and who his audience is. Huckabee wasn't fringe last time around, but his rhetoric this time, the typical "Christianity is under attack" and "We've got to take America back" is reconstructionist in origin, and that's fringe. But Huck has no billionaire in his back pocket to underwrite his campaign. I think he'd have won the nomination in 2008 if he hadn't run out of money right before the Texas primary. Jeb Bush is also not fringe, and he does have the connections to big money, but the traditional, mainstream Republican politics that the Bush family represents is at a decided disadvantage in a Republican primary these days. Whether Fiorina is or not doesn't matter, she isn't going to be a factor. The candidates who have both money and a following are Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, and they are both right wing nut case extremists who don't stand a snowball's chance on a hot stove of winning a national, Presidential election.

Been waiting a long time for the "goods on Hillary" to come out, whether it's Benghazi, or her emails, or the alleged tax issues at the Clinton Global Initiative. The GOP has anticipated her candidacy for a long time, and with all the money they have, and all the effort they've put into it, if that's all they've got, they might as well just skip 2016 and go on home. After 13 investigations, the best they could do was come up with dubious testimony from British-paid contract security which was contradictory and unreliable. Basically, a lack of resources to provide the extra security that was requested was due to them being committed in Iraq at the time, a move made by the previous administration. As one local politician put it, "The Republicans' presidential chances will go to Benghazi to die." Either the Republican campaign strategists who have been working on this for a long time have come up with nothing of substance, or they are the most incompetent boobs in the political world. Hillary has already packed away about a quarter billion, and will likely raise three quarters before it is over, will have to spend little of it in what will be a relatively easy primary, and will come away in 2016 with an electoral victory about the size of Obama's last one, and a double digit popular vote percentage margin. And that's regardless of who the Republicans run.

Interesting, in these polls, to note that Fox news is actually reporting a GOP Congressional Disapproval rating that is only one point below CNN, and higher than the other polls.
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

The interview with Wolf Blitzer can probably still be dug out of CNN. I remember seeing it. Since this is a long running theme of Carson's, and he has been since he's appeared to be headed to a candidacy, these stories are accurate depictions of his views. Carson's problem in running is that he will have to speak, and will have to articulate views on issues, and since he's a tea party darling, and his views are along the lines of their extremist paranoia, he's going to lose support as he goes along.

Right now, 63% of African Americans say they won't vote for him. But when it's head to head with Hillary, those negative numbers for him go up.
http://www.isidewith.com/poll/631968041/290416960

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

I don't see Carson having a shot. He has no political resume. Why would anyone vote for him for President? I can't imagine the Republican party nominating him.

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

Yes, Ed, you're right. And in that, Mrs. Clinton has two distinct advantages. She is running in an electoral cycle where about twice as many voters will turn out as did in the mid-terms, and the Republicans have lost the last three of those. And she will run a primary campaign with little opposition, most likely unifying her party during the time that her potential opponents will be shredding each other apart.

The early poll numbers show that she has a large, enthusiastic group of supporters up front. And they are much larger and higher than most pundits predicted.