Tuesday, September 22, 2015
And… Walker is out
Scott Walker has dropped out of the Presidential race, and on his way out the door he urged the other candidates to unite against Donald Trump.
Um, yeah, that should work. If anyone was listening to Scott Walker, he wouldn't be dropping out.
So… how did this happen? Not too long ago, Walker was the leading candidate in Iowa, but most recently he has been polling at less than one-half of 1% of Republican voters nationally. If I had been betting on it at the start of the summer, I would not have bet on Walker and Perry as the first two to drop their campaigns.
Comments:
<< Home
Two related observations:
First, Americans want a leader as President. Someone who inspires with a message, i.e. "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago," "It's the Economy Stupid," "Hope," "I will never lie to you, "kinder gentler," or even "return to normalcy." It takes a while for candidates to boil it down to these short phrases, but we usually can see the message before the candidate does.
Walker had no theme. Union Buster? Hard nosed negotiator? That's what most Republican voters know about him at a distance when they heard about Wisconsin politics.
But that's not who he ran as. He was running as Harley riding middle class guy who was a hard edged social conservative.
Which leads me to my second observation - he seemed inauthentic. His zealous embrace of the Christian Conservative and uber-pro life agenda seemed opportunistic and out of character. This did not seem real. And sure the Harley thing was cute and by all indications he does know how to ride a motorcycle, but it just seemed like an act.
Trump is a horrible alternative. But he's so over the top that it no longer seems like an act. This is "Who He Is." For all of his many unattractive qualities, this actually is a positive for him.
But yes, the field needs to be winnowed. Huckabee, Santorum, Jindal, Pataki (and Gilmore -- still mystifying even to us in Virginia) need to say goodbye
First, Americans want a leader as President. Someone who inspires with a message, i.e. "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago," "It's the Economy Stupid," "Hope," "I will never lie to you, "kinder gentler," or even "return to normalcy." It takes a while for candidates to boil it down to these short phrases, but we usually can see the message before the candidate does.
Walker had no theme. Union Buster? Hard nosed negotiator? That's what most Republican voters know about him at a distance when they heard about Wisconsin politics.
But that's not who he ran as. He was running as Harley riding middle class guy who was a hard edged social conservative.
Which leads me to my second observation - he seemed inauthentic. His zealous embrace of the Christian Conservative and uber-pro life agenda seemed opportunistic and out of character. This did not seem real. And sure the Harley thing was cute and by all indications he does know how to ride a motorcycle, but it just seemed like an act.
Trump is a horrible alternative. But he's so over the top that it no longer seems like an act. This is "Who He Is." For all of his many unattractive qualities, this actually is a positive for him.
But yes, the field needs to be winnowed. Huckabee, Santorum, Jindal, Pataki (and Gilmore -- still mystifying even to us in Virginia) need to say goodbye
Boy, is Jindal unpopular in Louisiana. He has run himself out of another job there (Congress, etc) by running for president.
Iplawguy's observation reminds me of '96 when Bob Dole said - in a debate, I think - "Let me be your bridge to the past." I knew at that moment that Dole's campaign was DOA. It was the very next day, I think, that the Clinton campaign adopted the slogan Bridge to the 21st Century.
Is there any Republican, with the possible!!!!! exception of Bush, who isn't a raving loon?
Fiorina - invents non-existant PP film, lies about many other things
Carson - doesn't believe in evolution, lies about using fetal tissue for research, religious bigotry toward Muslims
Trump - too much nonsense to list
Huckabee - carries Religious nut bar to new depths
I could go on and on - but makes me nauseous to think about them.
When did the party of Goldwater, Reagan, Ike, etc. become such a collection of panderers to the lowest, most revolting faction of the American people?
Lee
Fiorina - invents non-existant PP film, lies about many other things
Carson - doesn't believe in evolution, lies about using fetal tissue for research, religious bigotry toward Muslims
Trump - too much nonsense to list
Huckabee - carries Religious nut bar to new depths
I could go on and on - but makes me nauseous to think about them.
When did the party of Goldwater, Reagan, Ike, etc. become such a collection of panderers to the lowest, most revolting faction of the American people?
Lee
# posted by 
: 2:18 PM
: 2:18 PM
I agree with Ind that Kasich, Christie and Graham are not loons. And I don't think Rubio is either -- just a highly polished and ambitious striver with ZERO executive experience.
I'm not sure about Rand Paul. He's got some actual ideas. But to me, he's a loon.
Jeb! is definitely NOT a loon. But he's got baggage that he hasn't packed well and at this point is about as inspiring as grocery store brand vanilla ice cream.
Pataki is definitely not a loon. But he's even less interesting than Jeb!
Really, other than Trump, none of them are completely nuts. (OK, maybe Ted Cruz) Some scare the hell out of me (Cruz again, Carson, Trump. the new and angry Huckabee, Santorum), but what they really are is egomaniacs.
As for Walker, here's a quick analysis from the Washington Post that nails it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-wasnt-unlucky-he-was-clueless/
I'm not sure about Rand Paul. He's got some actual ideas. But to me, he's a loon.
Jeb! is definitely NOT a loon. But he's got baggage that he hasn't packed well and at this point is about as inspiring as grocery store brand vanilla ice cream.
Pataki is definitely not a loon. But he's even less interesting than Jeb!
Really, other than Trump, none of them are completely nuts. (OK, maybe Ted Cruz) Some scare the hell out of me (Cruz again, Carson, Trump. the new and angry Huckabee, Santorum), but what they really are is egomaniacs.
As for Walker, here's a quick analysis from the Washington Post that nails it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-wasnt-unlucky-he-was-clueless/
Anonymous, maybe named Lee ( :) ), asks how did this happen? Where did the party go? I would point to Kevin Phillips and the Southern Strategy.
On the larger topic of the evolution of the GOP from a Northeastern/midwestern/western party dominated by college educated merchants, landowners, bankers and investors to a southern/rural party dominated by Christian Conservatives and funded by the wealthy, Steve has hit on one of the biggest factors: Kevin Phillips and the Southern Strategy.
Phillips was not the only one with this idea, he simply put it in writing. Lots of GOP strategists recognized the cracks in the Democrats' "Solid South" in the 1960's.
A really interesting historical question is what would have happened had Wallace not run in 1968 and Humphrey been able to hold on to the 48 Electoral votes that went to Wallace and pick up a few other states where Nixon benefited from voters who weren't ready to vote for a Republican. but were no longer going to vote for a Democrat.
Could Nixon have won without a Southern Strategy in 1968. Probably not.
How about in 1960? If Nixon had not been so timid on Civil Rights could have have won Illinois (OK, could he have won it by enough that even the Daley machine couldn't have defrauded him out of a win) and maybe New York? Nixon was trying to win in southern states even then and picked up Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and Florida.
To me, that's when the die was cast. It was clear by the craziness of the '64 campaign (read Ron Pearlstein's fabulous book "Before the Storm, Barry Goldwater and the End of American Consensus).
Phillips was not the only one with this idea, he simply put it in writing. Lots of GOP strategists recognized the cracks in the Democrats' "Solid South" in the 1960's.
A really interesting historical question is what would have happened had Wallace not run in 1968 and Humphrey been able to hold on to the 48 Electoral votes that went to Wallace and pick up a few other states where Nixon benefited from voters who weren't ready to vote for a Republican. but were no longer going to vote for a Democrat.
Could Nixon have won without a Southern Strategy in 1968. Probably not.
How about in 1960? If Nixon had not been so timid on Civil Rights could have have won Illinois (OK, could he have won it by enough that even the Daley machine couldn't have defrauded him out of a win) and maybe New York? Nixon was trying to win in southern states even then and picked up Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and Florida.
To me, that's when the die was cast. It was clear by the craziness of the '64 campaign (read Ron Pearlstein's fabulous book "Before the Storm, Barry Goldwater and the End of American Consensus).
Mark, there you go again with the Bobby Jindal cracks. You really love to hate that poor man. I would like to hear the backstory on that one.
I agree with IPLG on lots of items (as usual) but especially in his assertion that Lee would have found Goldwater and Reagan just as loony as the current field. And I also agree that Rand Paul is a loon.
As for the Southern Strategy, I continue to believe that this particular explanation of GOP ascendancy continues to be vastly overstated.
As for 1960, in truth Nixon went backwards. The GOP had been chipping away at the Solid South for a couple of decades (for many reasons that clearly had nothing to do with race or Civil Rights). In 1952, Ike won TX, TN, VA, and FL; in 1956, Ike won TX, TN, KY, VA, WV, LA, and FL. As for 1960, Nixon could only hold FL, TN, VA, and KY. He actually lost ground in the Deep South in almost every state (and TX, LA, and WV went back into the Democrats column). And Nixon did hold onto the old guard "race men" and black heroes like Jackie Robinson and Joe Louis who campaigned all over the nation for the Nixon ticket (FTR: those old stalwarts started of to peel off in 64).
In 1964 (a real outlier election) Goldwater actually won the Deep South (LA, MS, AL, GA, and SC) but nothing else (save AZ)--losing in a landslide to LBJ. To think that the GOP suddenly saw the 49 electoral votes of the Deep South as the new Holy Grail really takes a lot of imagination, especially considering that the nation was clearly on a trajectory toward racial justice. Moreover, to give up its century-long tradition as the party of enlightenment regarding race, would not have made any sense (again for such a measly return). On the other hand, for lots of reasons (partly race but mostly other big changes over time), Nixon and GOP strategists believed they could turn (or at least neutralize) the South. But no one in their right mind would have willingly shifted the locus of GOP power and influence from North to South. Yes. It happened, and it is a strange story--but I view it as mostly one of unintended consequences and contingencies and winding roads and blind corners and perfect storms.
By the way, Michael Barone (whom I prefer over Kevin Phillips) keeps writing columns hinting at a possible realignment in the offing. Intriguing. He is certainly right about one thing: party coalitions look rock solid right up until the moment they shatter.
I agree with IPLG on lots of items (as usual) but especially in his assertion that Lee would have found Goldwater and Reagan just as loony as the current field. And I also agree that Rand Paul is a loon.
As for the Southern Strategy, I continue to believe that this particular explanation of GOP ascendancy continues to be vastly overstated.
As for 1960, in truth Nixon went backwards. The GOP had been chipping away at the Solid South for a couple of decades (for many reasons that clearly had nothing to do with race or Civil Rights). In 1952, Ike won TX, TN, VA, and FL; in 1956, Ike won TX, TN, KY, VA, WV, LA, and FL. As for 1960, Nixon could only hold FL, TN, VA, and KY. He actually lost ground in the Deep South in almost every state (and TX, LA, and WV went back into the Democrats column). And Nixon did hold onto the old guard "race men" and black heroes like Jackie Robinson and Joe Louis who campaigned all over the nation for the Nixon ticket (FTR: those old stalwarts started of to peel off in 64).
In 1964 (a real outlier election) Goldwater actually won the Deep South (LA, MS, AL, GA, and SC) but nothing else (save AZ)--losing in a landslide to LBJ. To think that the GOP suddenly saw the 49 electoral votes of the Deep South as the new Holy Grail really takes a lot of imagination, especially considering that the nation was clearly on a trajectory toward racial justice. Moreover, to give up its century-long tradition as the party of enlightenment regarding race, would not have made any sense (again for such a measly return). On the other hand, for lots of reasons (partly race but mostly other big changes over time), Nixon and GOP strategists believed they could turn (or at least neutralize) the South. But no one in their right mind would have willingly shifted the locus of GOP power and influence from North to South. Yes. It happened, and it is a strange story--but I view it as mostly one of unintended consequences and contingencies and winding roads and blind corners and perfect storms.
By the way, Michael Barone (whom I prefer over Kevin Phillips) keeps writing columns hinting at a possible realignment in the offing. Intriguing. He is certainly right about one thing: party coalitions look rock solid right up until the moment they shatter.
WF-- that is why it is good to have historians around! Good stuff, and it fills out the rest of the story.
Re Jindal-- I suppose that in a way I am an "authenticity voter." My problem with Hillary Clinton is rooted in the contrived and manufactured version of herself she presents. Jindal strikes me as profoundly fake- a Rhodes scholar and Brown graduate in science who will hold any popular anti-science view to promote his career. (A little like former Rehnquist clerk Cruz bashing the Court for striking down state laws-- he helped write some of the opinions that struck down state laws!). Worse, I think the critics are right that Jindal has favored running for president over running Louisiana. You don't hear the same critique of Kasich, and he remains popular in Ohio. I prefer governing over pandering, and some of these candidates (Kasich, Rubio, Biden, Sanders) have good track records at actually doing their jobs for discrete sets of constituents.
Re Jindal-- I suppose that in a way I am an "authenticity voter." My problem with Hillary Clinton is rooted in the contrived and manufactured version of herself she presents. Jindal strikes me as profoundly fake- a Rhodes scholar and Brown graduate in science who will hold any popular anti-science view to promote his career. (A little like former Rehnquist clerk Cruz bashing the Court for striking down state laws-- he helped write some of the opinions that struck down state laws!). Worse, I think the critics are right that Jindal has favored running for president over running Louisiana. You don't hear the same critique of Kasich, and he remains popular in Ohio. I prefer governing over pandering, and some of these candidates (Kasich, Rubio, Biden, Sanders) have good track records at actually doing their jobs for discrete sets of constituents.
Thank you. Good to know. As I wrote earlier, I admire Jindal, and I suspect a lot of the home-state criticism is part of the normal grousing inherent in being a long-term elected official (although I can attest that it is real). Moreover, as he has enjoyed consistent, phenomenal (unprecedented) electoral success in LA, I would not count him out if he ever decided to run again in a statewide election.
As for the "anti-science" characterization, which I had never heard before (and, for the record, that is not the the critique of him that I hear from my LA friends), your term of art inspired an enlightening internet search. I found there is an entire subculture devoted to disparaging him and "trolling" him on that point. Intriguing.
Post a Comment
As for the "anti-science" characterization, which I had never heard before (and, for the record, that is not the the critique of him that I hear from my LA friends), your term of art inspired an enlightening internet search. I found there is an entire subculture devoted to disparaging him and "trolling" him on that point. Intriguing.
<< Home
