Osler's Razor

From best to worst in terms of whom I guess would be, in fact, the best president for the USA for 2017:

1. Jeb Bush
2. John Kasich
3. Bobby Jindall
4. Scott Walker
5. Chris Christie
6. Rick Perry
7. Marco Rubio
8. Hillary Clinton
9. Rick Santorum
10. Carly Fiorina
11. Jim Webb
12. Ted Cruz
13. Martin O'Malley
14. Ben Carson
15. Mike Huckabee
16. Lincoln Chafee
17. Rand Paul

From most likely to least likely in terms of whom I guess might have the best chance of running the gauntlet and taking the oath in 2017:

1. John Kasich
2. Scott Walker
3. Hillary Clinton
4. Martin O'Malley
5. Jeb Bush
6. Marco Rubio
7. Ted Cruz
8. Chris Christie
9. Rick Perry
10. Rand Paul
11. Bobby Jindall

No Shots:

Rick Santorum, Carly Fiorina, Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee, Mike Huckabee, and Ben Carson


Disregarding their obstacles to nomination, best general election candidates in 2016:

1. Martin O'Malley
2. Marco Rubio
3. John Kasich
4. Chris Christie
5. Hillary Clinton
6. Jeb Bush
7. Bobby Jindall
8. Scott Walker????
9. Jim Webb
10. Ted Cruz
11. Rick Perry

Unmitigated disaster general election candidates:

Rick Santorum, Carly Fiorina, Lincoln Chafee, Ben Carson, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

WF-- I have some questions!

1) Rand Paul is last? I find him pretty intriguing. Why is he the worst potential president?

2) John Kasich doesn't seem to be on the radar right now for a lot of people. He's not even on the NY Times list I linked to in the post-- I added him to the list because of what I have read elsewhere. How does he get traction and money?

3) O'Malley had failed to perform at times when given the chance. How is he a great general election candidate?

4) Scott Walker doesn't look so great across the border here. Minnesota has thrived while Wisconsin has lagged economically (and in business development) while he has been governor. Should that matter?
 

Given what a disaster the former governor of Texas was as president, I would vote for almost anyone else on the list other than that one.

Given the disaster his father and brother were as presidents, I would not vote for the guy that would be in the dynasty bracket.

The last good completed presidency that resulted in good economic growth, kept us out of unnecessary wars, balanced a budget, etc., was named Clinton. Why not favor a return to the general success without the skirt chasing issues, and seriously consider Hillary?

Unless you believe that the D's will win the House or Senate, electing an R will result in uni-party government with all of the ills that may produce. Divided govt is the way to sane governance. Since gerrymandering by state leges is likely to product an R house, and who knows about the Senate, a D president may be our only protection against extremism.
 

I will not vote for a Republican candidate in the general election, period.

I don't really favor Hillary, but I can't see any other Democrat who could stop the Clinton juggernaut.

So I'll be voting for her, but doing so (as my dad says) "holding my nose."
 

Hi Mark,

Great questions. And please allow me my standard caveat that nobody knows anything--me especially, but here is my thinking of some of my seemingly outrageous suggestions.

1. Paul is intriguing (although a bit tinny; and, like me, he is way too thin-skinned to ever be a great president). His main political problem is that he has no bankable constituency. There is a glass ceiling for libertarianism (it is a rump segment of the conservative movement). He has wide appeal in some ways--but my guess is that his wide appeal is about one centimeter deep. And as he attempts to broaden his message outside the libertarian movement he is encountering legions of enemies made by his father and fellow libertarian travelers. More to your question of competence, he is another first-term senator who seems dreadfully ill-prepared and also way too ideologically rigid to be effective.

2.Kasich is trying out for the Mitch Daniels role in 2016. The great wonk hope who may or may not run. He also wants to be courted, evidently, although his official answer is that he is talking things over with God. My guess is that God is going to talk him into it. Kasich is optimistic, measured, and dynamic, and he has a great record of accomplishment in national politics as well as state government. I know we disagree about this, but I remain convinced that money is not going to be a problem for any of these heavyweights who want to make a serious run (at least not for the first couple of primaries).

3.O'Malley may be a complete stiff for all I know--but he is fairly articulate and attractive and telegenic. The Democratic media machine can keep a person with those qualities in the running in a two-person national race. Moreover, we know almost nothing about him, which is a great bonus for a general election candidate: a blank canvass on which we can project our natural American optimism on his prospects. I put him up there because he looks to be the sole beneficiary of a Hillary stumble or health problem or midlife crisis or some other unimaginable fiasco in Clintonland. If, for some crazy reason, Clinton is out, O'Malley is there to pick up the pieces, and the GOP that has prepared for four years to run against Hillary has to scramble and recalculate and run against "Bill McKay."

4. I will defer to you on the inside-Wisconsin scoop--but that is not the story we are hearing down here (and on Fox News). We always hear Walker the Maverick, willing to take on the unions and entrenched armies of liberalism, and the conservative champion of the Goliath of the Democratic establishment in three straight high stakes elections. Good GOP politics. I have him up there on my first list because I gave special weight to governors. If I find that I agree with you that his record as Wisconsin governor is less successful than I previously thought--then I will definitely take him down a few notches on that list.
 

I think voters are sophisticated enough to understand that a vote for JEB is not a vote for his brother; and that a vote for Hillary is not a vote for Bill Clinton part III.

As far as who will be the "best" president? I think how successful someone is as president is largely determined by political, social, and economic factors outside the control of the president. That said I am noting for JEB because I think he COULD have the credibility to get some bills passed through a congress of different makeups. (i.e. part control)
 

I usually loath anon. commenters, but this last one makes some sense.

My knowledge of O'Malley is limited, and I'm a fan of his predecessor in Maryland, the Republican Robert Ehrlich (based on his clemency work).

WF, there is something to the Wisconsin/Minnesota comparison, but not as much as some people try to make of it. Still, it doesn't make Walker look too great when the fairly similar state next door does way better during the same time period on job creation with opposite policies and all-DFL governance. (DFL being the localized Democrats, the Democrat-Farmer-Labor party).

Also, WF, I am around a lot of libertarians, so perhaps I over-value their numbers.


 

When I think of Hillary debating, well, she is no Bill. Remember when she tried the canned "that's hope that you can photocopy" on Obama and it fell so terribly flat. Then there was the time she tried to harass Obama about friendship with a former Weather Underground member. When Obama reminded her that her husband pardoned such persons, she looked if she had no idea it was coming. I don't see dialogue as her gig.
 

P.S., yeah, that's a painful memory (especially for Hillary). For what it is worth, I wasn't saying those would be the BEST debaters, but the two pairings I want to see. Actually, I think Webb v. Christie probably would be the two best debaters overall, so maybe that one WAS reflective of debating ability. But Clinton v. Huckabee interests me because of the Arkansas connection, the private v. public faith component, and the folksy v. highbrow element.

Of course, nothing will ever come close to Stockdale v. Gore v. Quayle in pure entertainment quality.
 

I honestly believe, or perhaps hope, that someone will come out of left field and shock us all. Someone who truly has the best interest of others in mind, who won't run on a platform of fear. Someone who can put the national interest before party interests. A politician who realizes that all people have rights and the purpose of government is to embolden and enable, not to deny. Someone who values peace, knows that some things are worth fighting for, and still supports dialog even with our most staunch enemies. Someone who will lead by uniting rather than gain support by simply stating what the "other guy" won't do.

I do not see anyone from either party who comes close to doing these things. And that is simply sad.
 

Gavin, maybe this is one of those things where the best person for the job is someone who would not desire it.
 

Very true. Where is Cincinnatus when you need him?
 

You really should move Marco Rubio down the list. 'D' Floridians put him in the Senate to get him out of State Politics. He is an ambitious, egomaniacal jack a$$.

In our house we are thinking it will be Jeb with a VP selection of Kasich (thankfully he can't pick Marco) vs. Hillary. And like Tall Tenor I will hold my nose when I vote for Hillary and her Scoobie van.
 

Oz, Gavin has made a good point...

Who the hell would *want* this job, anyway?
 

Gavin, why left field? How "bout center field?

Everyone wants the "perfect" candidate, the kind you write about. I do too. Unfortunately, Washington was the first and last "perfect" presidential "candidate," the only American almost no one of his time could resist. Methinks we'll not see his like again.

Prof, the reasons you don't hear much about Bobby Jindal anymore lie in the news and editorial pages of the Times-Picayune.




 

Gavin, why left field? How "bout center field?

Everyone wants the "perfect" candidate, the kind you write about. I do too. Unfortunately, Washington was the first and last "perfect" presidential "candidate," the only American almost no one of his time could resist. Methinks we'll not see his like again.

Prof, the reasons you don't hear much about Bobby Jindal anymore lie in the news and editorial pages of the Times-Picayune.