Random Election 2016 Thoughts (Clinton and Bush)

Hillary's done for all intents and purposes. Once Biden jumps in, she will slide to a distant third place behind him and Sanders, and maybe even down into O'Malley/Webb/Chafee 1% territory.

But she's never gone gracefully, and never has Bill. Every scandal, they start by denying it, then grudgingly admit it but say there was nothing wrong with it, then say they "take responsibility" but still pretend they didn't really do anything wrong, then pout when there are consequences. Obama beat her in 11 straight primaries in 2008 and she still waited to concede while her gang talked up the possibility of breaking the Democratic national convention and pulling out a win. She'll drag it out, at the expense of her party's chances of holding the White House, taking back a Senate majority, and gaining seats in the House.

Her stubbornness in the face of defeat (not the possibility of defeat, actual defeat) is one of her problems. The other two are related:

• Nobody likes her; and
• Nobody trusts her.

At least nobody who hasn't been on her payroll forever. The left Democrats don't like her because she's a centrist. The conservative Democrats don't like her because she's a centrist. The centrist Democrats don't like her because she makes centrists look bad.

Nobody trusts her because she lies like a rug, thinks she's above the law, acts surprised when she's told that's not the case, and is sort of like Mitt Romney when it comes to actually taking a position on anything -- she is always saying whatever she thinks people want to hear, except when it means saying she was wrong or she's sorry.

Yes, she raised big money at the beginning of her campaign, but that was because the big money Democratic donors bought the trademark Clinton "inevitability" hype. Now they're noticing it was BS and looking for another horse to back; that's a fourth problem.

Which brings us to Jeb Bush, who has two of the same four problems.

Bush isn't really unlikable. Watch him some time. He's sort of modest, self-effacing, wonkish. Those qualities may not make for a great candidate when you've got a self-promoter like Donald Trump blocking your path to the White House, but he doesn't personally make my gorge rise like Clinton does.

Nor is he likely to prove as stubborn, to the detriment of his party, as Clinton. When and if he reaches a point where it's clear he isn't going to get the GOP's nomination, he'll pack it in, endorse another candidate, and soldier on for the party. I do predict that he won't do so until after the New Hampshire primary at the soonest, though, and then only if Kasich or Christie is the one pulling ahead, or likely to do so on the strength of his endorsement. If one of the "not a chance in hell of winning the general election" candidates (Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Huckabee, et. al) is still surging, he may stay in on the reasonable supposition that that is what's best for his party.

He does have a similar trust problem -- because of his last name, his brother's disastrous presidency and his father's tendency to go weak-kneed as president when pushed by Democrats in Congress.

And he does have the problem that the big money he raised as "inevitable" has probably dried up (3rd quarter FEC reports aren't due for nearly a month) based on him being back in the pack so far.

But his prospects are far better than Clinton's, because he at least has prospects. Hillary Clinton will never be president.

Election 2016 Handicapping: Bush v. Paul?

They're the front-runners for the GOP's presidential nomination at 13% each, according to a new CNN/ORC poll [hat tip -- Politico, via #sayfie].

What's changed:

- Chris Christie is sinking (he's down to 9%). I predicted this, of course, but it's not like that's a prophetic feat of note. There's only room for one "party establishment" candidate. "BridgeGate" was a chest wound in Christie's presidential aspirations; Bush indicating real interest is the equivalent of La Cosa Nostra sending around a guy to put a .22 in the back of his nascent campaign's head.

- Mike Huckabee, who led the GOP primary polls as recently as a month ago, is fading as the campaigns start to actually crank up -- maybe not officially, but they're burning gasoline and shoe leather and not bothering to keep their intentions secret.

- Paul Ryan is still hanging in there right behind Paul and Bush, but that won't last. No sitting US Representative has been elected to the White House since Garfield, and "I was second fiddle to your last big sacrificial lamb" is not a bankable qualification.

If nothing changes -- and at 2 1/2 years out, all kinds of things can change -- we're probably looking at a Bush/Paul race. If that's the case, it's my considered opinion that Paul's odds are even longer than those his dad faced. The party establishment has had two election cycles to shore up its weak spots against insurgency from the Pauls' direction. State and local party organizations will be locked down tight, the big checkbooks will come out for Bush and the GOP establishment would rather throw the election (if it's not already a lost cause regardless of candidate) than put a loose cannon on the Oval Deck.

Election 2016 Handicapping: Miscellany

Jeb Bush says he's "thinking about it." And I doubt he'd publicly say that if he wasn't leaning toward "yes."

How does that affect the race?

Well, Bush leaning toward "yes" and Bridgegate probably combine to doom Chris Christie's prospects. At the very least it closes some big checkbooks until Bush makes up his mind ... and if it is "yes," those checks will be written to him rather than to Christie. There's only room for one "moderate governor" in the field, and the Bush family hasn't put two of its own in the White House already by being weak fundraisers.

The RealClearPolitics polling average has Bush in a pack of 4 at the top, all clustered within two points of each other: Mike Huckabee followed by Rand Paul followed by Bush followed by Christie.

I don't think Huckabee will throw in. I could be wrong, but for the moment I'm going to assume he'd rather just keep on making good money as a talking head than spend another year plus riding around flyover country in a bus that smells like a locker room, kissing hands and shaking babies again.

Could it come down to Bush versus Paul for the GOP nomination? Yes, it could (and I think Bush would win such a two-way contest).

Of course there's a large rear end of the pack from which some other contender might pull away. And someone new and unexpected might show up on the field. I mean, we're two years out here.

But even two years out, there's another polling average that has to have Republican strategists and possible Republican candidates worried: Even with Democrats in the midterm doldrums, even with ObamaCare dragging its namesake administration down, even with congressional Republicans bringing up Benghazi as often as most people sneeze, Hillary Clinton boasts a lead of 9% or so on any of them.

Election 2012: GOP handicapping developments

No sooner had I started writing down Jeb Bush's prospects than those prospects began to start looking up.

With the early resignation of US Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), Bush's name went under the spotlight as a possible interim replacement. He's now officially disclaimed interest, but it's good "pre-trail" publicity, as it points up the fact that he's previously won two statewide elections and is still well thought of in that key state.

Bush's name also appeared on a survey sent out by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, asking respondents about their 2012 presidential preferences. Other names listed on the "proxy ballot" included Mississippi governor Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels (governor of Indiana), Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman (US ambassador to China and former governor of Utah), Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Pawlenty and Mitt Romney.

I'm bumping Jeb up from 5% to 10% on the old KN@PPSTER-o-Meter, and taking that 5% out of Huckabee's (3%) and Gingrich's (2%) hides.

I'm also replacing Fred Thompson's name and mug shot with a question mark, and keeping Thompson's former 5% on it. Henceforth, until things shake out quite a bit more, that question mark will represent the entire "also possibly running" pack, to include Thompson, Barbour, Ron Paul (or a Paul movement "heir"), and oddball possibles like former US Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), who's setting up for an Iowa stump tour this fall.

Hell, the eventual nominee may resolve out of that question mark. But at this early date, I still think we're looking at a likely Huckabee/Gingrich shootout with Huckabee prevailing.

Election 2012, GOP handicapping update

The latest adjustments to my GOP 2012 presidential nomination odds line:

I've downgraded Jeb Bush -- the Tucker Carlson interview was good, but I've heard nothing from him since, and the early game is important. Down 5% to 10%.

Ditto Fred Thompson. His candidacy has been pretty much notional on my part, and the longer it stays that way the less likely it is to become reality, or to get anywhere if it does become reality. Down 10% to 5%.

Tim Pawlenty is definitely starting to pull up into the pack. He's been elected vice chair of the Republican Governors Association. He's making forceful speeches to the RNC and chumming it up with party leaders in key states. He's definitely on the trail. See Matthew Berger at The Faster Times for an argument on his behalf.

I still don't see Pawlenty as a likely nominee, but he's got more mojo than I initially credited him with and he's busting his ass to make himself a contender. Up 10% to 11%.

Newt Gingrich gains 5% on "wow, did you see the size of that machine?" grounds.

No, I'm not downgrading Mike Huckabee, his less than stellar fundraising efforts notwithstanding. His TV and radio exposure more than make up for the gap between his take and the war chests of Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin. They're concentrating on raising money to make themselves look good later. He's making himself look good now. He's still the man to beat. 35% and steady.

I'm still thinking that this will come down to Gingrich or Huckabee, with Pawlenty in good shape for the VP slot.

Election 2012: Adjust!

Based in part on some Rasmussen numbers (hat tip -- David Weigel), some significant adjustments to the odds:

- I've taken Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty down from 5% to 1%. As any number of analysists have pointed out -- I think it was Dick Morris talking about Hillary Clinton who first caught my eye with it -- "unfavorables" are at least as important as "favorables" in evaluating a candidate, and a candidate with unfavorables in the 35% or higher range might as well pack it in. Pawlenty's unfavorables are at 34%, his favorables are only at 38% ... and this is before he's really moved into the fight, and a year after the GOP's national convention was held in his state, giving him a chance to showcase himself. I don't see him going anywhere but down from those numbers, and I expect to take him completely off the board soon.

- Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, gets a 5% boost, up to 25%. I was surprised to see his favorable ratings at 65 ... I'd anticipated more in the 50 range. I also expected his unfavorables to be right up against that 35 "doomed, doomed" number, but he came in six points under at 29. He's aggressively promoting himself, and it's working.

- I was surprised to not see Bobby Jindal or Fred Thompson in the Rasmussen field. As much buzz as Jindal's had, I think it was a mistake to exclude him and I haven't adjusted his number. Apparently I over-estimated Thompson's continuing cachet; I've taken him down to 15%, but still think he may throw in and do well.

- I'm now thinking that I got a little prematurely and impulsively bullish on Jeb Bush. Rasmussen didn't bother to include him, and the other McCain usually serves as a pretty good mood barometer for the GOP's Feral Confederate Chihuahua faction. Downgraded from 15% to 10%.

- As has been pointed out, I was probably unfair to Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney by starting them at zero. I still don't think either of them will be viable candidates for the GOP's nomination come 2012, but the numbers say I'm wrong, at least for now. I've redistributed the left-over percentages to them, 5% and 4% respectively, by way of acknowledging that they seem, at least for the moment, to have a shot.

- The Rasmussen numbers confirm my contention that Mike Huckabee is the guy to beat. He has the highest favorable ratings (78%) and the lowest unfavorable ratings (17%) in the field. He's keeping his mug on TV and his voice on radio, and seldom a day goes by that I don't see email promo stuff from him -- stuff which I assume goes to a VERY large list. He stays at 35%, but with a definite bullet.

A lot can change in three years, but as of right now my guess is that we'll end up seeing a Huckabee/Gingrich faceoff for the GOP's 2012 nomination. Huckabee will play it populist and "outside the Beltway;" Gingrich will trot out the latest version of his highbrow/wonky take on Reaganism.

Election 2012: Bush, upgraded

Tucker Carlson interviews Jeb Bush, and Bush displays perfect pitch for a 2012 prospect dipping his toe in the 2009 waters.

In response to the "why not run?" bait:

Frankly I don't wake up each day assuming I'm the solution to life's problems. I think there will be emerging people who have a combination of great ideas, a great ability to communicate those ideas in a relevant way to people, and the ambition necessary to run. You need all three. I am content to be part of the larger effort that creates the fertile ground for those candidates to run.

Circumspect, not coquettish. Door's open a crack, but no wink, wink, nudge play.

This is good stuff, and it's candidate stuff:

- He postures the GOP as having a communication problem, not an ideological problem.

- He never lets the audience forget that he has eight years of experience in the executive saddle as governor of a large state.

- He reminds everyone that he's a Republican who can make bank with the growing Hispanic voter demographic.

- He gets some "regular guy" bumps in there, referring to the necessity of providing for his family's financial security and letting Carlson note that he drove himself to the interview. With his last name, that's something he has to work at -- his personal net worth upon leaving the governorship was reportedly "only" $1.3 million, down from a high of $2 million, but he comes from a monied family (Dad's net worth is in the $25 million range).

- When asked about GOP leaders, he name-checks Gingrich and Jindal, but pointedly ignores the three people most likely to be identified as 2012 contenders at the moment: Huckabee, Palin and Romney.

I wouldn't say he's running, but he's definitely not definitely not running. He's being mindful of what to say and what not to say, keeping his options open and building his cred with modest presentation instead of flash. In other words, good early strategy.

Over on the right you'll see my little "contenders" graphic again, this time with my percentage evaluations of each candidate's chance of securing the 2012 GOP nomination. In subsequent iterations, the numbers will shift as my opinion shifts.

[follow this topic at memeorandum]

Election 2012: Early GOP Handicapping

The 2012 GOP nomination field is already starting to come together in peoples' minds. Is it too early to start eyeballing the horses and making tentative predictions? I don't think it is.

The graphic to the right features eight faces that fit. No, they haven't declared, and some of them may not do so, but that doesn't mean they're not in contention. They've all got buzz to one degree or another as of right now; no one would be surprised to see any or all of them throw their hats in the ring.

I removed one face from the field before I even got the graphic together: Mississippi governor Haley Barbour's. He's apparently already on the stump, but IMO he's just got too much baggage to make it past the Iowa straw poll. I could be wrong. You may see him in future "field pics."

From the top:

Jeb Bush: He's the first Republican to ever manage election to a second term as governor of Florida. He's popular with conservatives. He's popular with Hispanic voters, and especially with the Cuban community. I don't think he'll run, though. Even four years of Obama is probably not going to be enough to give the Bush name a nice ring to the American ear again. It would be an uphill run, and the Bush boys seem to prefer that "sense of inevitability" in their campaigns.

Newt Gingrich: He futzed around with the idea of running in 2008 -- so much so that by Decision Time, everyone was tired of his futzing and the other candidates had left him behind. I think he's learned his lesson, I think he'll get in the 2012 race early and without reservations, and I think he'll do well. I don't think he'll win the nomination, but he's one of three candidates whom I believe might win it.

Mike Huckabee: This is the man to beat. You don't believe me, do you? Just you wait and see. He's got the executive experience (two terms as governor of Arkansas). He's got the populist chops. He gets "I told you so" credit for staying in longer and fighting John McCain harder than any other Republican in 2008. He's keeping his mug out front, but not so far out front as to get it slapped silly in the off-season. When he comes out ... well, like I said, just you wait and see.

Bobby Jindal: Maybe he'll run, maybe he won't. If he does, he'll be an early cull. Unfortunately, he probably won't have a shot at the VP slot, either, since the nominee will be a southern male and will be looking for a running mate from the north or west.

Sarah Palin: I won't be surprised if she runs. I will be surprised if she makes it past the first turn in the primaries as more than comic relief. Even if she manages to hold on to her weird "rock star" shininess for two more years (highly unlikely -- she passed out of "Las Vegas Comeback Special Elvis" territory some time ago and is headed for "Anyone Seen Big White Jumpsuit Elvis? I Think He's In The Bathroom ..." country at ludicrous speed), she'll be running against opponents who haven't resigned from public office twice without completing their terms, and who will be very keen to mention that at every opportunity. She's toast.

Tim Pawlenty: He's going to run. He's going to lose. But if he can avoid getting caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy or dropping the f-bomb in debate, he's got a good shot at the veep nomination. The top slot will go to a conservative southerner; a northern/midwest governor who tries to sell himself as "moderate" fills the bill out nicely.

Mitt Romney: Not a chance. I've already explained why.

Fred Thompson: My third "contender" pick -- but see "Gingrich, Newt" above and double the emphasis. If he wants in, he can't afford to dick around until late 2011 before saying so. He needs to announce early, and be out there throwing hands even earlier (like, say, yesterday). Otherwise, Huckabee and Gingrich will steal a march on him and his campaign will, once again, be over before it gets started.

Right now my money's on Huckabee ... but the campaigns won't be in full swing for two more years and a lot can change in two years. If "national security" issues move back to the forefront in a big way, Wonk Hawk from Hell Newt Gingrich or solid, comforting, "Reaganesque" Thompson may get an inside track.

Well, there you have it. That's the way I see it as of today. I'm sure that I'll see it differently as things progress, and that I'll say so ... but I don't memory hole my predictions when I get it wrong. If I've got it way wrong, well, this post will remain here for you to make fun of in perpetuity.

--

Photo Credits:

Jeb Bush -- Government of Florida, public domain
Newt Gingrich -- KyleCassidy, GNU Free Documentation License
Mike Huckabee -- David Ball, used with permission
Bobby Jindal -- Government, public domain
Sarah Palin -- J.delanoy, Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0
Tim Pawlenty -- Office of Governor Tim Pawlenty, used with permission
Mitt Romney -- Mitt Romney Media, Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
Fred Thompson -- US Senate, public domain