Osler's Razor

And a Few Horse Race Questions:

1. John Kasich delivered in NH. Does his over-performance have any legs? Will anything good happen to him between NH and Ohio (March 15)? Does this win actually help his viability?

2. The Bush political family has a history of (and the expertise to) swing a big stick in South Carolina. And they play rough (ask Bob Dole and John McCain). Will the Bush org bring everything they've got to this primary? A primary that has been more of a kingmaker than any primary in the nation for the GOP. YES. The real question: will the Bush org direct their fire at Trump? So far Jeb! has targeted Rubio. Will Bush 2016 take one for Team America (and risk going the way of Chris Christie) and put everything on the line to decapitate the Donald?
 

MORE HORSE RACE QUESTIONS:

3. Analysts tell us that Bernie has successfully pried away the last of the working-class (Jacksonian) white Democrats from the 2008 Hillary coalition (add that to his true-blue liberal loyalists). The conventional wisdom is that Hillary's strength with minorities, especially African Americans, is the firewall that makes Bernie's run little more than academic. Questions: will African American primary voters stick with her this time? Is that enough? Or is the great ship of Clinton taking on water at an unsustainable rate? Is Bernie gaining strength? Or will be look back and view Tuesday night as the apogee of his campaign?
 

On the D side, I find it interesting that (relatively) younger African Americans like Ta Nahesi Coates and Ben Jealous have endorsed Bernie. Will that have an effect? The Black community was NOT united behind Obama until deep into the 2008 nomination process. If that firewall is breached, Hillary is toast.

On the R side.... wow. At this point, its going to take several big developments for Trump to lose. Shocking. But all this jockeying is for SECOND PLACE. Maybe Jeb can take out Rubio, and perhaps even wound if not destroy Kasich (who does not have a ground game in SC), but at best he will find second. If not third. Meanwhile the Donald will start to rack up more and more delegates. And He has organizations, volunteers and energy across the nation.

Both Sanders and Trump scare me. Not for their economic policies -- those will get body slammed by the GOP House and most likely deadlocked Senate. What frightens me is their naivete and inexperience in foreign policy matters. ("Carpet Bomb" Ted Cruz is worse). Does Democratic Socialist Bernie really understand how incredibly difficult it will be to deal with the likes of Vladimir Putin, B. Netanyahu (I bet I spelled that wrong), and the Chinese, let alone the various warlords in the Middle East? Does Trump really think his neo Colonial bullying tactics will not be considered deeply offensive?
 

It's about populism this cycle, in two very different flavors. Bernie's is the Robin Hood variety, while Trump is the authoritarian father version.

Hillary's mantra of "I will fight for you" is both meaningless and fails to express a populist sentiment.

I was surprised an happy to see Kasich do well. However, compared to Trump he comes off as a boring fuddy-duddy.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

WF-- you are right about the Bushes and South Carolina. Let's remember just how nasty that got... that is where supporters of George W. Bush circulated rumors about John McCain's "secret black baby" (the McCain's had adopted a child from Cambodia). I hope nothing like that happens again, on either side.

IPLG-- I think Sanders would simply engage less with foreign policy, and to some of us that is a good thing. We have paid too high a price to be the world's policeman and morality officer, and have little to show for it. A focus on domestic issues and a smaller military would be fine with me and many other Democrats.
 

MORE HORSE RACE QUESTIONS:

4. Ted Cruz has emerged as the smartest, most disciplined, and best-organized of the GOP candidates. As a result, he has out-performed initial expectations by a wide margin. Can his amazing political IQ compensate for his basic "unlikability" (which is an understatement; perhaps universal revulsion among those who know him best is more accurate)? Or, in other words, in the end, is it necessary to have friends to win the presidency?
 

MORE HORSE RACE QUESTIONS:

5. Can Marco overcome the "Rubio Robot" natural disaster? Going into SC, Marco had secured the best two endorsements possible: Trey Gowdy & Tim Scott. In general, do endorsements even matter? And, in this case, if they do, are these two heavy-weights enough to get Marco back on his feet?
 

Don't know about Marco-- that was a bad, bad debate for him. I do think endorsements are over-rated.

The thing about Cruz is this: You DO need friends to be an effective president. We learned that from some of the failures of President Obama, who did not work very hard on personal relationships with those in Congress and other key figures. You are right about Cruz's unpopularity; I was told by someone who would know that his nickname among colleagues is "Senator Jackass." That isn't good.
 

Mark. Regarding Cruz: I would excuse the Washington enmity for him ("Senator Jackass" and the "NYT's least favorite national pol"), which could all work to his benefit, if I did not hear so many of the same things from Evangelical conservatives in places like Iowa--who cannot seem to break bread with him on a personal level even as they share common political concerns.

An Aside: I am hearing from those same places that Marco is the fellow you would like to have as your best friend or neighbor (incredibly charming on a personal level, evidently).

And I take your point about President Obama. I wonder if this is just not where we are today? I am starting to wonder if we are not in an intellectual place wherein compromise just isn't part of our language any more. You and I are smart and fairly reasonable and care for one another--but we rarely seem to come together on matters of policy. We are redefining compromise as the other guy agreeing that I was right all along. That certainly in the way of President Obama. But in all fairness, I am more and more aware that it is also my way of thinking.
 

Quasi Philosophical Question.

Republicans claim President Obama and all his faults created Trump. Democrats claim Republicans and all their anger and demagoguery created Trump.

An Aside: Noteworthy that both camps assume Trump is a bad thing.

Who is right?
 

IPLG. I did not know that Ta Nahesi Coates had endorsed Bernie. Not totally surprising when you think about it--but definitely noteworthy. Just from listening to people talk, I am sensing that there might be more cracks in the wall than is generally assumed.

Anecdotal: The Congressional Black Caucus supposed to endorse Hillary today--but I read a DEMOCRACY NOW piece that Barbara Lee was withholding her endorsement.
 

ONE LAST HORSE RACE SLASH LOGISTICS QUESTION:

Do the new GOP rules in which early primaries are proportional and then later primaries are winner-take-all offer up a better opportunity to withstand the Trump blitz and more time to recover and rally around one establishment candidate in the latter stages of the contest? That is, these early Trump victories are not netting a ton of delegates. Should this fact give the establishment hope?

An Aside: this new system is also a disadvantage to Cruz--if he continues to over-perform and win Southern states (including his home state of Texas) in the so-called SEC primary (March 1).
 

I would recommend an article in the NY Times this morning by the writer Jennifer Finney Baylan,"The year of the Angry Voter". She quoted Annie Lamott who said "Not forgiving is like drinking rat poison and then waiting for the rat to die." We have a lineup of presidential candidates passing out reasons for us to be stay angry, point fingers and fear others. There is also a lot of rat poison being offered up.

This election is ugly with a clear distinction between the parties about who we should should be angry with and who we should fear. I am inclined to go with Bernie Sanders who asks us to be afraid we aren't sharing enough nor caring enough for our neighbors. He is also allowing us to be angry with those who promote injustice and unequal treatment of others. He stands in sharp contrast to those who promote anger at and fear of those who might threaten our position of privilege.

Bernie has big ideas. This year he is unique in his focus on long term goals.
He will be slowed by those resistant to change but we will be going in my opinion in the right direction. He will need a huge verification from the voters in order to govern. With the probable opposition this is definitely a possibility. The people may be heard.

I also like John Kasich. He and Bernie have not been nasty. They both have experience governing. Kasich has my ear with his empathy for the plight of the average Joe. I think he sees that they need help. He loses me when he adds that "the government is the last resort" for the benefit of his base. The tragically slow and meager response in rural Ohio and urban Michigan to crisis in distressed low resource communities by their Governors has led to expensive fixes with too much avoidable harm. Governor Kasich would have to give up some of his slavish ideology and govern better than he has as Goverrnor.

I would suggest we take all the other candidates and put them in a jar on a shelf in a back room. We should get a strong cap for the jar so we don't have to hear them talking about themselves. They probably will be missed by the media, I wouldn't miss any of them.

Jennifer Boylan had a better idea.

"This is what it feels like to be an American right now: a witness to a shaving cream fight that has somehow foamed out of control. I want to gather together everyone running for office and sit them down before my father. It would be good for them to hear the counsel my father gave to me, words that other fathers and mothers have doubtlessly said since the beginning of time: "I'm not angry... I'm just terribly terribly disappointed".

 

Dad: "I would suggest we take all the other candidates and put them in a jar on a shelf in a back room." I actually think I have seen that somewhere in your basement. It's by the old paint 'n stuff. I agree with you about Sanders, and about Kasich.

WF: It will be interesting to see what happens when Cruz does really well on Super Tuesday (and I think he will). He won't supplant Trump, who will win enough to still matter. At that point, does it become a two-man race? I think there is a good chance of that.

IPLG, are you in the Kasich camp? Er, is there a Kasich camp?




 

This is an interesting topic. John is correct about reading the piece in the NY Times this morning. It caught our attention immediately and she got me with her close. As my Dad would say... "Next time I expect you to use your better judgement".

Now interestingly the comments I heard while in Florida from loyal R's. One said there isn't anyone he can support and therefore won't vote for any of them. Another was solidly in the Rubio camp but couldn't offer reasons why. Another likes Kasich but says he can't win so they won't vote for him but isn't sure who else they can honestly support. I said, "why can't he win?" Uh,, Fox News says he can't win. My response was if that's who you like in round 1 that is who you should vote for.

They also all said that Clinton would be indicted. I'm sure this is from Fox News, or Glen Beck or Rush, as well.

Ah, The Donald.... is really quite brilliant. He has riled up the disgruntled Americans with his incendiary comments about religion, borders, etc... and they follow like lemmings. They believe he can actually do the things that spew from his mouth. Newsflash... He has spent so little of his own money. He is a lot smarter that people give him credit for.

 

Yes, I have donated several dollars to Kasich and intend to vote for him in the Virginia primary.

See this on Bernie and his foreign policy.. or lack thereof: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-would-be-the-sanders-doctrine/2016/02/11/140bbd62-d103-11e5-b2bc-988409ee911b_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

And this on the role of "magic": https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sanders-and-trump-magic-sells/2016/02/11/bc5e4df6-d0e8-11e5-b2bc-988409ee911b_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory


 

I agree w/Mark in principle about Bernie and foreign policy, except . . . except that it makes me nervous to see a guy who's smart and passionate on domestic issues almost seem not to care that he's not a foreign-policy expert. Watching Bernie in the foreign-relations half of tonight's debate was painful. Painful. It makes me nervous that there's this big chunk of issues that Bernie doesn't seem to care he doesn't know as much about. Maybe it's apropos that he brought up Hillary talking to Henry Kissinger--in that spacy kooky tangent he got on--because Bernie would have to talk to somebody for advice about foreign affairs, even if it weren't a priority, and I have no idea who he'd talk to (well, not Henry Kissinger).

I read this said somewhere else, and it's how I feel, too (as a D): I wish we could have them both: Bernie and Hillary. Co-presidents.
 

Cruz is a Christian dominionist, like his father. Believes that Christians (as they define that!) should be the only people in power in the United States, as they believe this country was created as a Christian Nation (contrary to history and the Constitution). They believe that the Bible should be where our law comes from and that OT law should be implemented. Only those who believe as they do should rule, as those are the only true Christians in their book.

No LGBT rights, women subservient to men, no sparing the rod in child discipline, et cetera.
 

Waco Farmer - given this description of Cruz and his desired laws I will be burning on a stake and that might be preferable.

Which of his fellow candidates is going to make this an issue? Perhaps Donald can go down that path. People like religion, but they don't like crazy religion which helped take Dr. Carson down a few notches.
 

I wonder if Cruz treats his 5- and 7-year-old girls like that. Brrrrr. That man is scary.
 

Hi Christine,

It is actually "A Waco Friend" who asserted that Ted Cruz is a Christian Dominionist. I have heard the charge--but I am not familiar with all the literature on which the charge is based. As far as I know, Cruz does not claim this for himself. But, in answer to your question, I feel certain that Donald Trump will probably get around to this issue eventually. My guess is that he will not be overly concerned with sourcing the accusation.


 

Sorry about that Waco Farmer. I must have been overly concerned about being burnt at the stake.
 

The fact the HENRY Kissinger came in the Dem debate at all is somewhat troubling. Hillary would be considered OLD, OLD, OLD in any other election year. But Bernie is 74! Not only is the first Jew to ever win a Presidential Primary, he's the OLDEST candidate to ever win a primary, blowing away John McCain's record by 3 years.

Buy since Bernie and Hillary both became legal voters before a majority of American were even born, Kissinger and Vietnam were burned into their consciousness. KISSINGER left office 40 YEARS AGO! And the actions that Bernie deplores, the Cambodian incursion, for example, took place even earlier. This would be like Reagan and Carter debating over whether FDR's pre-war foreign policy team gave him the right advice in the late 30's. Or Nixon and Kennedy arguing over the Versaille Treaty.

Certainly good questions for historians, but TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in 1980, 1960 and today.

 

Versailles
 

Yeah, I agree IPLG-- it seemed bizarre.

It would make a lot more sense if they actually dug into what Hillary Clinton did as Secretary of State in terms of discrete decisions.