This is such a great idea for a thread! I think this is a really baffling election cycle. On the Republican side, the candidates that seem to be gaining the most traction are Donald Trump and Ben Carson, and neither of them have any experience in elective office. Not to take anything away from their achievements in business and medicine, which are considerable, but to me, neither seem qualified to to be President of the United States. They both lack command of the issues and the political experience that I see as requirements for the job. The candidates that have the experience and political acumen to do the job, people like John Kasich and Jeb Bush, appear to be going nowhere this year. So, on the Republican side, candidates who have no proven record of accomplishment in government are trouncing candidates that have impressive records in government. This is very unusual, especially in the Republican party, which has always been more orderly in its selection of candidates than the Democrats. In addition, neither Trump or Carson are running particularly substantive campaigns. Trump's strategy seems to be centered around telling people how great he is, reminding others of how stupid everyone else is, and how he'll be able to "make America great again" by the sheer force of his presence in the office. Carson seems to be running on not being a politician, and on his authenticity and personal biography, but what he doesn't seem to be running on are pragmatic, achievable policy reforms. Running on a platform of taxing everyone 10-15%, and seeking to replace Medicare and Medicaid with a poorly explained system of savings accounts, are not realistic proposals. Neither candidate would be doing well in any other year but this one, but they are the frontrunners this year.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton seems to be riding her way to a virtual coronation as her party's nominee. For reasons that I don't quite understand, no serious challengers in the Democratic party dared to run against her. Her most serious challenger, Senator Sanders, is running as an unconventional politician, but Senator Sanders is an avowed socialist, and half of the country is conservative. Because of that, there is no possible way, in my opinion, that Senator Sanders can be elected as President of the United States. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, can be elected, and definitely has the experience to be President. However, unlike her husband, she's an incredibly bad politician. Her email troubles were an entirely unnecessary, self-inflicted wound. Her explanations of why she did what she did make no sense, and her management of hit has been horrible. She struggles to connect with people, she comes across as politically motivated and not driven by conviction, and a majority of the American people think she's not honest and trustworthy. While she was a good representative for our country, she has very few, if any, accomplishments as Secretary of State to run on. Adding to her troubles as a candidate, this country is still struggling economically. Her and her husbands decision to collect hundreds of millions of dollars from Wall Street and the questionable donations from foreign governments to their foundation make her unconvincing as a champion of economic reforms that will help to reduce income inequality. The Democrats seem to believe she is the most electable canddiate, but I am not so confident that is the case. I think if the Republicans nominate someone reasonable who has a legislative record of accomplishment, that it's likely that the Republicans will win in 2016. It's very difficult for any party to win three Presidential terms in a row, especially with a candidate like Hillary Clinton who lacks the political skills that usually result in victory.
Since I don't think candidates like Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, or Ted Cruz can win the Presidency, and the reasonable people in this field, like John Kasich and Jeb Bush, seem to be unpalatable to the Republican electorate, Marco Rubio seems to be the most likely nominee at this point. However, the American people usually like to select someone as President who seems to address the perceived weaknesses in their previous President. Ronald Reagan ran an optimistic, hopeful, and strong campaign after Jimmy Carter was perceived as being too pessimistic and not strong enough. George Bush ran as a compassionate conservative who would restore honesty and integrity to the White House after years of scandals from Bill Clinton. Barack Obama ran as the hope and change candidate who would improve the economy and get our country out of wars after the economy collapsed and President Bush's wars were perceived to be failures. Marco Rubio, as a first term Senator with little executive experience, who speaks well but has little record of accomplishment, seems too close to Barack Obama to me. I think the country will likely want to choose someone with more governing experience this time around.
So, it's a fascinating time to be an American. What does everyone else think is going to happen? Who are you supporting, and why? I don't really know how things are going to shake out. I'd give the Republicans the edge at this point, but I think it's going to hinge on who the Republican candidate happens to be. If they choose an establishment candidate, I think they'll win, but if they insist on going with one of the more unconventional choices, they may just snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I'd welcome everyone else's thoughts on this, and I echo Matt's call to have a respectful discussion where we can all learn from each other.
Clint Eastwood Forums
Author