Osler's Razor

1. Marc Rubio
2. Ted Cruz
3. Chris Christie
4. John Kasich
5. Jeb Bush

The five candidates who matter (i.e., have a chance of winning the GOP nomination in 2016) ranked by performance last night.
 

Interesting!

Here is my question: Why is it that Trump & Carson have no chance to win the nomination? Both seem to have lasted beyond the "Herman Cain narrative" time period and exceeded his level of support. Plus, they clearly appeal to a broad part of the Republican base. So why, really, are they given no chance to win the nomination?
 

I think Bush is done after last night. Rubio basically emasculated him. I keep hoping Kasich will rise above the noise, but he has not. Christie...he DOES know how to work with Democrats and some of his fiscal ideas make sense. But his temper, while under control during the debates, seems to have disqualified him.

Rubio bothers me for a whole host of reasons, but he rose to the challenge last night. The negative stories about absenteeism that have been swirling around were all knocked down. I still think he's an uber ambitious lightweight with no experience in an executive role and no real policies running solely on a "fresh air" platform. Kind of like Obama.

Cruz scares me for the same reasons, only more so. But to his credit, he's figured out how to sound less scary. He saved his knives for the media last night.

Carson... At the risk of creating a firestorm, I will advance the theory, which I did NOT create that many GOP voters see Carson as the Republican "Magical Negro." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro

"See, we're not a bunch of racist hate mongers! We nominated a black guy!!!"

Trump-- This is the testing period for him. He clearly has facts at his command. He is not just doing this as a stunt. He has to avoid a rapid fall and just stay in it for a while and see what happens when Rand Paul, Jeb Bush and others start to give up.


 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/29/why-marco-rubio-is-so-effective-and-dangerous/

 

I agree with you about Trump. One thing about him… he hasn't spent any of his own money on ads yet-- he lives off free media. What happens when he dumps some money into the project?
 

At this point, the social conservative wing of the Republican party has belatedly come to realize they're under siege. Support eroding, demographics aging, viewpoints becoming publicly disfavored. Dr. Carson has successfully tapped into that, adopting the following cunning strategy: Say a lot of red-meat satisfying things for that crowd (who seem willing to ignore their conflict with his own personal record as a physician and with his previously expressed views) and otherwise avoid taking any firm positions at all, in order not to alienate the fiscally conservative wing of the party, who he hopes will vote for him in desperation rather than going libertarian or staying home.

I'd say this is based on a pretty credible calculation, used by various politicians of both parties: personal/social issues evoke emotion and passion, while fiscal issues largely do not. Furthermore, given the supreme court's actions on two of the core issues of the social conservatives (abortion and same-sex marriage), a president actually has very little power to effect any change in the legal status of either, which leaves the candidate free to deploy whatever rhetoric might suit his purposes without worrying anyone will ever take him to task for failing to make policy changes. It's not his fault, after all.

The faustian bargain between the Christian Right and the Republican Party has proceeded largely on these lines for decades; the line from Republicans amounts to "if we did the things you elected us to do, we would not be able to be reelected to continue not doing the things you elected us to do." It may be hoped that someday my tribe will learn our lesson, but until then we'll continue lending our support and credibility to politicians who squander it, thereby relentlessly eroding the former and seriously (perhaps fatally?) damaging the latter.

-Silas
 

Why Trump and Carson do not have a chance:

Neither one has ever received one vote for office over the course of a lifetime. Neither one has a campaign organization in IA, NH, or SC. And neither one can win a general election. At some point, this inconsequential period (a period in which Rudy G. and Howard Dean led in polls for months) gives way to a canvass. At some point people are going to actually have to walk into a voting booth and pull a lever or stand up at a caucus and cast a vote for somebody (and that is an action of consequence). And when that happens everything changes.

Nobody knows anything (and me most of all), but I will stick to my guns on my sense that this may very well come down to Cruz versus Rubio. As for Jeb, this is a test of character. If he can pick himself up and keep trudging along (a la Bill Clinton or John McCain), he will be in the hunt until the very end. Or he can unravel completely and prove his detractors were exactly right when they said he was nothing but a spoiled rich kid, marshmallow-spined person of privilege. His call.
 

It looks like Trump does have an organization in Iowa: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/politics/donald-trump-campaign-turnout-operation/index.html?eref=rss_politics

 

By no means original with me or a new thought, but bring back "smoke filled" rooms and real conventions, I say. These "smoke filled" TV beauty contests are suited to high school student government and Boys State and Girls State (do such things still exist?) campaigns. No way to select Prexys.

Bad enough that TV has made watching football games live and in stadiums almost intolerable. But, guess that's entertainment.

Well, in the name of full disclosure, didn't watch last night, so can't comment on the specific question on the table.
 

I didn't see the debate last night, but I'll offer this as a different lens for analyzing the appeal of both R & D candidates:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/28/upshot/matching-candidates-with-the-books-they-sound-like.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

So how they speak about issues (literally, how many words per sentence) -- and what we voters want to hear, and in what way we want to hear it -- matters.

IP Law Guy, I think you're probably right about Ben Carson: at least, I think that's why he hasn't been scrutinized more or challenged more by other Republicans.

 

My favorite part is where people keep trying to convince me that CNBC, who is owned by Comcast -- COMCAST! -- is a "liberal" news channel.
 

Friday Morning Quarterbacking:

1. I wrote something longer on this last night and lost it (by God's grace). I hear you, Mark, regarding the fact that Trump has some people in IA (in fact, Sam Clovis is an important person in IA politics even if he is on something of a minor losing streak). What I am saying is that Trump is not doing things in either of the two normal ways in IA (or NH or SC): he is not trying to be Rick Santorum literally visiting every county in a pick up truck visiting 1000s of churches and community centers "pressing the flesh" ("I'll press your flesh, you dimwitted sumbitch! You don't tell The Donald how to court the electorate. We ain't one-at-a-timin' here. We're MASS communicating!") nor is he buying a ground game (I keep watching his expenditures and he is mainly paying a few consultants and dropping in from 40,000 feet every once in a while). That strategy has been tried before but never with success--but there is always a first time. IA is always a wild card.

2. RE IPLG's "Magic Negro" thesis: conservatives like to like conservative African Americans because it proves to themselves (it means nothing to liberals) that they like and dislike people because they are people (e.g., dislike black liberal presidents because they are liberal not because they are black). So, conservatives (for the sake of their own sanity) like to remind themselves in the face of the liberal drumbeat that "my favorite SCOTUS justice is black; my favorite columnist is black; my favorite comedian is black; my favorite general is black; my favorite whatever....I really don't hate black people; I just disagree politically with some people who happen to be black." Agree.

Having said that, Ben Carson is not going anywhere for all the reasons I listed above--and, one more, like Trump, he just doesn't speak the language fluently. The reason no person has ever made the successful jump from business to presidential politics in one fell swoop (although Ross Perot came the closest) is that it is tough. Too tough. Not as tough as me deciding to become a brain surgeon at 50--but somewhere on that spectrum of tough.

3. IPLG nailed it on the scariness of Rubio and Cruz and the parallels to President Obama. Side Notion: I wonder if the presidency of Barack Obama has really opened up the possibility that almost anybody can do this job? Which gets to the question we are starting to ask (that Mark asked me on this thread): now why exactly aren't Donald Trump and Ben Carson qualified? But, back to fluency, President Obama and Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz speak "American Statesman." Trump and Carson are tongue-tied once they get past the most basic platitudes.

 

Interesting point about speaking "American Statesman"-- that's true, and I had never thought about that.
 

I think Ronald Reagan opened up the possibility that anyone can do the job. At least in my 53 years, Reagan is the person I remember who seemed to change the notion of who can be president.
 

Two Other Tidbits:

1. With a nod to Amy Garrou, here is a partial list of the "so I guess just about anybody can do this job" presidents:

--Wm. Henry Harrison (old general)
--Zachary Taylor (fairly young general)
--Franklin Pierce (local pol)
--Abraham Lincoln (local pol)
--Woodrow Wilson (university president and half-term NJ governor)
--Wm. Howard Taft (solicitor general, circuit court judge, territorial governor, defense secretary)
--Herbert Hoover (self-made man, philanthropist, and commerce secretary)
--Ike (war hero general)
--JFK (scion of a wealthy family, dashing senator and man about town)
--Jimmy Carter (Annapolis grad, peanut farmer, and one-term governor of a Southern state)
--Barack Obama (community organizer, attorney, state senator, one-term US senator)

NOTE: I am only counting presidents who entered office as a result of their election to the highest office; also, RR does not make my list here because he had actually been in the public eye as a political figure for 16 years upon his election, had served two terms as governor of the most populous state in the union, and won the presidency on his third attempt to win the Oval Office.

2. TRUMP's path to his current success in a nutshell:

Announces his irrelevant candidacy and awkwardly disparages Mexicans in his ham-handed laundry list of incoherent issues that includes immigration--and very few people take notice. The mainstream media (mostly for the sake of a few laughs) decides to make a "cause celebre" out of the Donald's comments and incites a backlash against him among activists. As the condemnations roll in (and the endorsements walk out the door), the Donald stands his ground and refuses to apologize. Conservatives--who have long bristled as immigration reform as a prime example of the horrible nexus between crony capitalism and establishment Republicanism--find out Donald Trump is virulently anti-immigration and taking fire. A one-issue (but the right issue combined with what looks to be courage in the face of the politically correct lynch mob) is born. And the Donald continues to roll along on the strength of that one event (100+ days and counting). How does it end? At some point his momentum begins to flag. And we wake from our frenzy and look around and say what a wild ride and how did we ever get this far?
 

My dad was visiting this week and his narrative on Trump was that he sells the image of "I am a successful rich guy." I disagree on that-- what I hear Trump saying is "I'm a great negotiator." That IS a relevant skill for the presidency, isn't it?

WF, many of my favorites are on your list above, as you probably know, and I agree about Reagan-- he came in with more relevant experience than nearly any of the candidates in either party, as an 8-year governor of the Republic of California.
 

Yes. The list of people who seem not quite qualified to be president who turn out to be great presidents is not insignificant (and, likewise, the list of "can't miss" people who are eminently qualified and then lay an egg is also quite substantial).
 

Hmmm… who goes on that list? Both Bushes, probably. No one can argue with their experience going into the job.
 

Two Lists. One in which presidents with amazing resumes disappointed and one in which very good political resumes turned disastrous:

1. Great Americans But Disappointments as POTUS
--Jefferson & Madison, two great framers and founders whose presidencies were not terrible but not much above mediocre (LA Purchase notwithstanding)
--JQA, best secretary of state ever, arguably smartest person to ever occupy the executive mansion, spoke five languages, taught at Harvard, amazing self discipline, amazing vision, but a one-term failed president
--George H. W. Bush, most qualified man to be president since JQA, House, CIA, VP, Ambassador to China, war hero, successful business man, national GOP chair, and also a one-term failed president

2. Can't Miss Candidates That Missed in Big Ways
--Martin Van Buren, governor of NY, national figure, invented the modern two-party system, imagined and brought together the modern Democratic Party--but a failed president ("Martin Van Ruin")
--James Buchanan, 30 years of national service, House, Senate, secretary of state, minister to England, on the short list of absolute worst presidents ever
--Richard Nixon, House, Senate, foreign policy intellectual, VP, political genius, indomitable will, only president ever forced to resign (in disgrace)

Notes: I am not including George W. Bush because I don't see him as especially "can't miss" qualified upon his election (6 years as governor of Texas seems to me not impressive on the scale of the folks mentioned above). Also, ironically, I think I could very easily include Grant and Taft and Hoover (two of whom made the previous list) on this list of great Americans about whom the electorate held great respect and high expectations who disappointed. But their qualifications were unorthodox in that they were they presidents who had never before been elected to public office.
 

Hard to disagree with most of that-- but 6 years in charge of Texas isn't that different than Reagan's 8 in California, and I do think being governor of a big state is the job most like being President.

I love hearing from people who know so much history… much of this is new to me.
 

I see your point, Mark. Here is how I would explain the subtle yet important distinction in my mind. I hope you won't think I am trying to have this both ways, but I place Reagan in the well-qualified class (but not dramatically qualified in the same way I view some of the gargantuan national figures mentioned above). That is, RR was surely qualified as a successful two-term governor of a major state and three-time presidential candidate, and, although he still also faced many doubters at the time who questioned his competence and his qualifications, he succeeded grandly.

As for Bush-43, he was in the second-term of his governorship and only his sixth year of public life as a political figure (less on both counts than RR). Like Reagan, he was continually "misunderestimated" during that time and hard to take serious (perhaps more justly). Add to the mix the oft-repeated claim at the time (subsequently put to death by the administration of Rick Perry) that the governor of Texas was actually subservient to the Lt. Governor as the key figure in the executive branch, I would not accept the proposition that George W. was either an already established "great American" or "can't miss" qualified. His governorship places him within the bounds of "qualified," but not a slam dunk--as opposed to his 2000 opponent, Al Gore, who appeared incredibly well qualified (senator, presidential candidate, VP, intellectual).

 

So, WF, it comes down to this: Do qualifications matter to you? In 2008, you made the consistent criticism of Barack Obama as a candidate that he was woefully inexperienced. In hindsight, I see that you were right in some important ways. He did not come in with the authority or foresight to make the changes he promised. Let's face it-- in my tiny area, clemency, it was a natural for him to make long-needed changes (he didn't even need congressional approval), but he did not. In foreign policy, the argument can be made that he suffered from inexperience in a particularly important way.

That said, do we make the same critique of Marco Rubio, who has pretty much the same resume?
 

Definitely a Fair Question. Thinking through this on the fly, let me say, number one, if I importuned you to vote against your party and worldview in 2008, I apologize. I am older and wiser today. Party and worldview usually trumps everything including qualifications and experience and even character. This is a natural fact of the American political system. For example, while I admire Hillary Clinton (probably more than you do) I would surely vote for Donald Trump or Ben Carson, if either were the GOP nominee, over Hillary in the general. Why? Even as I understand how morally objectionable that may seem on its face, as a practical matter any GOP winner will bring in an intellectual infrastructure (policy advisers, think tanks, experts, etc.) that better matches my worldview than any Democrat.

What I remember doing in 2007/08 was advocating vehemently with my friends in the Democratic Party for Hillary Clinton. Why? I was convinced throughout that entire cycle that the Democrats were locks for the general election in 2008; therefore, the battle for the presidency was not the Democratic nominee versus the GOP nominee--but the path to the White House lay completely within the nomination process for the Democratic standard bearer. And I was desperate for that person to be Hillary Clinton rather than Barack Obama.

Why? It was not so much about his lack of qualifications (even though his lack of experience ranked him with the very least qualified cohort of presidential contenders in all of American history). Rather. it was how little we knew about him. How short of a time he had spent in the public eye (coupled with the mainstream media's palpable reticence in vetting him). What I worried about in Candidate Obama was a certain suspected academic naivete when it comes to American politics. Having never shown any affinity for success in politics (and by that I mean achieving policy goals through political means), I worried that he possessed an ivory tower worldview that I know well in my own life surrounded by academics. Frankly, I was afraid he thought the world was as simple as his political science and law professors had taught him it was. In short, I worried that he had happily inhaled the Ivy League Kool-Aid on how the world works and the simplistic Progressive curatives.

In lots of ways, Marco Rubio is not unlike Barack Obama. He is young (although has a tad more experience than Candidate Obama), and he is something of an ideologue. He generally exhibits a very narrow worldview even as he articulates it brilliantly and simultaneously offering the false sense that his conclusions are based on sophistication and nuance.

Frankly, I prefer Jeb Bush or one of the governors over Marco Rubio as the GOP candidate (although I must admit that I am tempted by Marco's potential for electability). Having said that, I would surely also vote for Marco Rubio (or even Ted Cruz) over Hillary in the general for reasons related to the ones listed above.