The Hill doesn’t really go out on a limb when they endeavor to tell us the 13 most likely Republicans to win the party’s nomination and then become our next president.
Sometimes I think that the Democrats and Republicans are so dissimilar that they just behave differently and you can’t take lessons from the one and apply then to the other. But we can’t go back to 1988 to see what the Democrats did when faced with the end of the presidency of a transformative world historical figure. They had just endured two electoral drubbings far worse than what the GOP underwent in 2008 and 2012, but they were also coming off of a successful midterm election in 1986 in which they regained complete control of Congress. They opted to nominate a governor of a very liberal state, Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts. In other words, the party still wanted to impose its will rather than adapt. Remember that when you read this:
“Don’t count the Ohio twins [Gov. John Kasich and Sen. Rob Portman] out for vice president,” one strategist said.
“Kasich is a little too flakey, he’s still Kasich the congressman to a lot of people, and generally speaking, the politics of Ohio are a little too left of center for a lot of Republicans,” said another. “But guys like him bring an awful lot to the debate.”
The so-called “Ohio twins” are completely discounted as presidential material, but they might make it on the ticket despite being too left-of-center for the party base.
Will the Republicans, just like the Democrats of the late-1980’s, require a third drubbing before they come to the conclusion that the party cannot compete in national elections unless it widens its geographical appeal?
My guess is that the answer is ‘yes,’ because, if anything, the Republicans are slower learners than the Democrats.
For The Hill, the top tier challengers are Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, and Chris Christie. These are rather insane choices, although not obviously worse than lunatics like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee.
Trying to cram another Bush down the Republicans’ throats, let alone the country’s, seems like a thankless and expensive and ultimately doomed enterprise.
Chris Christie has more skeletons than a Halloween Party and a volatile and abrasive personality that is just as scary.
Rand Paul is a serial plagiarist with more family ties to white supremacists than Reinhard Heydrich and “evolving” positions on foreign policy that would split the GOP in half, if not quarters.
Nominating any of these men would be a recipe for epic failure, although Jeb probably has the temperament to keep things from getting into Goldwater/McGovern/Mondale territory.
Nominating a lesser known, less damaged governor, hopefully with some moderate credentials and a non-southern base would be the obvious play, and the equivalent of what the Dems successfully did in 1992. Scott Walker lacks the personality and Mike Pence lacks the moderation. The obvious choice is Kasich, but maybe not until 2020.
They opted to nominate a governor of a very liberal state, Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts.
You’re joking, right? Massachusetts was very liberal in 1988? We know that how? Just because Teddy was one of its Senators?
Compared to other states, Massachusetts was pretty damn liberal. Can you think of many others which were more liberal?
That’s just the thing. It’s so liberal there was a tremendous backlash to enforced busing. Or do you forget the corporate media always proclaiming the Democratic presidential nominee to be Che Guevara for no other reason than to be stupid? Just because a racist douchecanoe like Lee Atwater gets the corporate media on board doesn’t make it true.
OTOH, Dukakis was a weak candidate. The Democratic primary elections that year were discouraging — with Jesse Jackson coming in second to Dukakis and the DLC Al Gore finishing a very weak third. (The GOP preacher-man came in third in their primaries; suggesting that their primary voters weren’t then as stupid as Democrats. I say that as someone that liked Jackson circa 1988, but not for President.) If Gore had not chosen to become a corporate, right wing Democrat and aligned himself with liberal Democrats, he could have been the nominee that year. As he had more innate charisma than GHWB, not difficult to imagine that he would have won.
Thanks for your comment, but it’s hard to imagine almost any Democratic candidate winning in 1988. GDP rose over 4% that year and the economy had been growing for several years, ever since the end of the Volcker recession.
The Reagan years for middle and low income earners weren’t good. Not one single increase in the minimum wage for eight years. Iran-Contra and the S&L debacle were Reagan policies. And GHWB had always been a weak political candidate — on his own, only winning two terms to the House. Almost any Democrat could have beat him. Yet, Democrats managed to find one who couldn’t and their second choice would have lost as well.
That was certainly the perception among the great unwashed that year, and perception is 9/10ths of the political law.
And Lee Atwater for Poppy was there to constantly remind the masses that Michael Dukakis was just “another tax and spend Taxachusetts librul Democrat.” Who was so liberal he liked to give weekend passes to convicted violent felons like Willie Horton …
I don’t see how the GOP can nominate anyone who’s not a bit crazy. Their supporters are even crazier and Jeb, and Rand, and Chris are the sanest ones on offer.
Anecdotally, just came from a funeral for the father of a longtime friend. The funeral was 25 miles down the road in Warner Robins, the home of an Air Force Base and one that is under the total domination of the GOP. Michelle Nunn didn’t win her home county, also home to our former governor of the same last name as the brand new (ugh!) senator. Voters there are also the reason that we lost our Democratic Congressman in 2010 after the GOP redrew our district to be more Republican.
When I left the funeral the quite old SUV parked next to mine sported vehicle decals that proclaimed “liberalism is a mental disorder” and another sported the Obama logo with the assertion “most corrupt administration ever”. This is the mindset by which we are surrounded. I was glad that I’m still sporting my Nunn and Carter decals. We are so weak in this part of the state that we gotta win back some name recognition. Think I might keep those decals on at least for another couple of years.
“This is the mindset by which we are surrounded.” And there is no way any of us can penetrate that mindset, as they have been expressly told not to listen to us, ever, by there preferred media and from far too many pulpits. It’s a huge problem.
Oh, by all means, let them nominate Kasich. He’s a thin-skinned asshole who is virtually guaranteed to implode under the constant pressure of a presidential campaign. He won a second term as governor only because of the spectacular, borderline criminal incompetence of the Ohio Democratic Party.
The “conservative” training camp for GOP politicians only started this year. Incredibly successful in that such training turned yesterday’s “I’m not a witch” and “rape defender” candidates into rational sounding conservatives. Tillis, Ernst and Gardner are out of stop with the voters in NC, IO, and CO and yet, they won.
On paper, Kasich is a strong GOP contender. As the ignorant, not too bright, and thin-skinned GWB was coached well enough to fool almost half the electorate twice, why would Kasich present such difficulties?
GWB was an easily manipulated cipher. Kasich is very, very full of himself and holds up poorly when challenged or criticized. He did stuff during the re-election campaign- e.g. acting so insultingly bored when being interviewed by the Plain Dealer editorial board that the in-the-tank paper tried to bury the video- that would have done him real damage if he had had a credible opponent. He’s a thin Midwestern Chris Christie, basically.
It wasn’t as if Kasich had any fear of losing in 2014.
Not saying that such coaching/training can improve the presentation of self for anybody. Only most, not that even those who do improve are necessarily all that adept. Romney has clearly had extensive training and remains stiff and awkward. Hillary Clinton has been coached for decades and the gaffes keep coming. A few that receive limited, short-term training get worse as they become overly self-conscious of their performance. Results do vary by level of motivation for the goal. Kasich may not want to be POTUS all that much or not anywhere near as much as Walker and Christie do.
The Jebster is still the one I fear most. Not only smarts but articulate to go with a sober, low-key personality in stark contrast to his frat boy bro.
Chris Matthews months ago predicted it will be Rand Paul, and for that reason alone Paul will not make it. The Huckster might even end up being a stronger competitor from the Right to battle with the Jebmeister.
I’m also hoping Prof Rick Perry manages to avoid the laughable gaffes enough to grab the nom. Alas, I doubt I’ll be so lucky.
Jeb 2016! wouldn’t be on the lips of more than ten Republicans (and all those moneybag friends of Poppy) if Hillary 2016! weren’t touted as the foregone conclusion by Democratic Party elites and the sheeple that are too stupid to acknowledge that the Clintons are neoliberalcons.
There is a well entrenched predisposition in the American electorate reject political dynasties at the Presidential level. Therefore, Hillary does carry vulnerability that Democrats are blind to. But only if the GOP nominee is viable and not obviously stupid, nutty, or out of touch. There’s a short list of GOP pols that can meet that qualification. And Jeb! is one of them.
What America truly needs is generations of Clintons! and Bushs! to continually run against each other for President.
Perhaps every 20 years or so we’d even see Bushs! in the Democratic party and Clintons! in the Republican party. To keep it relevant.
At least it would be entirely clear to everyone that the oligarchs have finally captured the gub’mint.
That Scott Walker is ‘moderate’ is puzzling; the trajectory of his career suggests he is ruthless and predatory.
… but he is very good at not appearing to be ruthless and predatory on camera.
I think Walker must be said to have the clearest path to the nomination at present. He’s hardcore crazy enough to be embraced by the base, but doesn’t say completely ludicrous stuff or talk about rape, and he’s been elected thrice in a moderate state. He seems to manage to make himself seem less extreme than he is. And his focus on anti-unionism (as opposed to social issues) will bring the big money from the GOP donors.
I think Walker must be said to have the clearest path to the nomination at present. He’s hardcore crazy enough to be embraced by the base, but doesn’t say completely ludicrous stuff or talk about rape, and he’s been elected thrice in a moderate state. He seems to manage to make himself seem less extreme than he is. And his focus on anti-unionism (as opposed to social issues) will bring the big money from the GOP donors. Plus, the GOP strategists will see an opportunity to breach the Blue Wall (by winning WI). I don’t see anyone topping all that, unless he makes some major unforced error in the primaries.