2016 elections - because it's never too early

[garbon]

Sheilbh - here's a pretty lame headline from buzzfeed.

Ted Cruz Was Once Ticketed For Possession Of Alcohol As A Minor

[Sheilbh]

I think, as a Republican, that I'm very disappointed in the Republican spread.

I think, as a Republica, that you're atypical

Well do recall that Sheibh's main interest in our candidates is as a source of entertainment. Most on that list certainly have different, "strong" personalities.

Untrue!

Having a strong personality doesn't necessarily mean they're a strong candidate.

With the exception of Huckabee we don't know if any of them would be a strong candidate because the rigours of a national election haven't started yet. What I mean is they've got strong appeal to at least a significant chunk of GOP voters - with the slight exception of Paul who's a bit sui generis. They could all fail badly requiring a draft Romney campaign but at this stage that's a far stronger field than in 2012 and a far broader one than in 2008. Both seem like good signs to me. I know the party have tried to shorten the primary season and reduce the debates but I think at this point - so far, far away from any votes being cast - it looks like one that could actually last a while.

As I said before I think Huckabee's time may have passed. His greatness as a candidate was that he was a genuine populist who exposed the sham populism of so much of the GOP in 2008. He was also a social conservative who didn't seem to be all about hating pop culture and there was a warmth to his candidacy (his comments about Obama during the campaign were far more positive about how to him - another boy from Hope - it was a sign of the country move on and so on). I think he's definitely lost the first two, which is a shame.

Remarkable how similar the rhetoric of politicians in those distinct wings is.

They're still in the same party.

[Sheilbh]

Hmm...I don't see why it would necessarily be a negative. Depending on the individual, having a strong personality could be a selling point.

Who's the last President with a weak personality?

[Eddie Teach]

Hmm...I don't see why it would necessarily be a negative. Depending on the individual, having a strong personality could be a selling point.

Who's the last President with a weak personality?

Well, GHWB was famously depicted as a waffle. 

[Sheilbh]

Remarkable how similar the rhetoric of politicians in those distinct wings is.

Well do recall that Sheibh's main interest in our candidates is as a source of entertainment. Most on that list certainly have different, "strong" personalities.

Shelf like drama and excitement in politics.  I like the opposite.  I am always baffled by him.

Yes, he likes the spectacle and theater of it, damn the consequences that we have to live with.

Again this really ain't true. I like Huck because I think in 2008 he was a great candidate who did very well with little money and represented an interesting path not taken by the GOP ('they've got to go get a portion of the population they've missed the last two election cycles, particularly working-class people and minorities who have not thought there was a message for them').

My view of the GOP is that they're trapped in a policy and rhetoric cocoon crystallised in the mid-1980s. Their answers worked then, but they don't now. They're trapped in old dogma. I also think that the Establishment GOP aren't very competent. They've give the party Karl Rove, Dole 96 and Romney. Again, that's not the future. They need to break out of that cycle that's seen them lose the popular vote for the Presidency in five of the past six elections. Rather than doing the same thing each time and expecting a different result. I think what they need is modernisation which isn't necessarily the same as moving to the centre - which is where I disagree with people like David Frum and the Languish Independents.

In terms of policies the most interesting work being done is by the insurgents whether they're Tea Partiers or weirdos like Paul (Cruz is an exception here as he's almost entirely rhetorical) while I think Huckabee represented a shift in tone and message. Regardless in general the interesting stuff in American politics is happening on the right which is something the GOP should find heartening because I don't think that's been the case for a while.

However, American politics - especially the primaries - is wonderful for the spectacle and the theatre, but that's something you should be proud of. It's a rolling, Barnum-ish, democratic festival. I think that's very admirable and not at all something to sniff at.

Edit: And I think personality matters, which was and is Romney's biggest problem.

[Sheilbh]

Well, GHWB was famously depicted as a waffle. 

But that's not weak. The nearest I could think was possibly GW Bush because he seemed rather easily influenced, but even then I wouldn't call him weak.

I think to want to run for President and, in the last two elections, to then survive very gruelling primaries requires a strong personality. Mondale and McGovern for example may have been weak candidates, but they weren't weak men.

[CountDeMoney]

The nearest I could think was possibly GW Bush because he seemed rather easily influenced, but even then I wouldn't call him weak.

He wasn't weak, he just apathetic.  That happens when your Dad makes you get a job.

[garbon]

Huckabee was a good example of the Christian right. Lovely tone that.

[CountDeMoney]

Huckabee was a good example of the Christian right. Lovely tone that.

It bothers me that he's getting traction.  You never really have to worry about really crazy Christian types like Santorum, but Huckabee is just palatable enough to be dangerous.  Fucking looney.

[jimmy olsen]

Better than a Cdm approved candidate.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/virginia-lawmaker-wins-election-amid-teen-sex-scandal-n285726

[dps]

I also think that the Establishment GOP aren't very competent.   

This isn't news.  Depending on exactly how you define the Establishment GOP, the only time a candidate from that part of the party won a Presidential election in the last 80 years was in 1988.  (Eisenhower, I'd say, was backed by the GOP Establishment, but he himself wasn't exactly a member of the Establishment.)

[Sheilbh]

This isn't news.  Depending on exactly how you define the Establishment GOP, the only time a candidate from that part of the party won a Presidential election in the last 80 years was in 1988.  (Eisenhower, I'd say, was backed by the GOP Establishment, but he himself wasn't exactly a member of the Establishment.)

Maybe.

But when they're sole point is 'shut up and we'll win the election' I can understand why people want a change.

[celedhring]

This isn't news.  Depending on exactly how you define the Establishment GOP, the only time a candidate from that part of the party won a Presidential election in the last 80 years was in 1988.  (Eisenhower, I'd say, was backed by the GOP Establishment, but he himself wasn't exactly a member of the Establishment.)

Maybe.

But when they're sole point is 'shut up and we'll win the election' I can understand why people want a change.

Not you, Sheilbh. 

I thoroughly enjoy American politics, but that's probably because I am no longer subjected to them. I enjoy watching a circus, but not being the clown in it, so to speak. There's too much triumph of style over substance, and short-termist news cycles determining the fate of the nation for the following 4 years. But it's probably an unavoidable byproduct of the information age.

[Eddie Teach]

short-termist news cycles determining the fate of the nation for the following 4 years.

I don't know about that, the polling numbers seem pretty stable.

[celedhring]

short-termist news cycles determining the fate of the nation for the following 4 years.

I don't know about that, the polling numbers seem pretty stable.

Was mostly talking about the primaries, where a one week blunder can easily kill a leading candidate before an important primary. The primaries themselves are lots of fun for an outsider, but ridiculous from a purely democratic point of view. Why stagger them throughout several months? I understand it was necessary in a time without access to mass media, but nowadays candidates can easily send their message across the nation quite easily. Why privilege some states that vote earlier?