This blog is one of my hobby postings, as an outsider observer or US politics. This has nothing to do with tech or mobile, my regular readers can skip it. And I am not a US citizen, I can’t vote in the 2016 elections, this is just the views from someone who finds US politics very fascinating. But I was surprised that I hadn’t seen anyone do this type of math (yet) about what the 2016 elections mean in terms of the Republican party Primary process of nominating their candidate for President. The math is almost guaranteeing we will see not just chaos but a nightmare for the Republican party. I don’t mean the general election against Hillary, which also seems to be pretty badly stacked against the Grand Old Party (GOP). I mean the Primary process which starts eleven months from now. We saw a ‘clown circus’ in 2012 when the dimwits jostled against Mitt Romney and somehow Romney couldn’t swat them all away and the primary season went far longer than anyone expected. I think the math is almost certain to guarantee this time 2016 will be far worse. So follow me past the fold and lets do some math...
- - - - - - - - - - - -
(Welcome back)
So yeah lets think 2016 Republican Primary season. It starts with Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in January of 2016 with Nevada and South Carolina following in February. Why is this so alarming. What ‘math’ is being ignored by the pundits? Delegate math. I think the GOP is headed for a nightmare season of unprecedentely nasty attacks on the eventual winner and its very likely the whole process goes to a brokered convention. Its all due to unprecedented delegate math. But lets set the stage with a bit of review of recent history. (oh and this is another colossal blog article, runs over 9,000 words, it will take you probably half an hour to read, so go get your cuppa coffee before you start..)
BRIEFLY ON THE PAST
The 2008 Democratic primary process went almost to the convention. Obama won obviously but Hillary fought him almost to the end and one or two of the major states towards the end could have flipped the result for Hillary instead. Did that process damage Obama for the main event against McCain in 2008. No, all pundits agree that Obama emerged from the bruising battle with Hillary as a stronger candidate and many would argue Obama’s toughest political fight of his career was the primary battle against the Clinton machine, rather than the easier time he had against McCain-Palin in 2008 (or Romney-Ryan in 2012). A long drawn-out primary fight is not inherently destructive. But note, Obama and Hillary were VERY similar ‘centrist’ politicians with nearly identical political positions. Both were sitting Senators who had been reasonably close and somewhat admired each other (as much as a political rival is capable of, haha). Their supporters were polled many times in 2008 and said they would not be upset if the rival won, they would still support that rival in the main election. The debates were mostly very friendly and there was essentially no ‘ammunition’ of nasty sound-bites that came from the 2008 Democratic primary process to harm Obama in the 2008 main election. As it was a two-person race for most of the 2008 primary season, Hillary’s and Obama’s campaigns could rather easily agree on a demilitarized zone where each would not attack each other too viciously, and with only two rivals playing quite fairly, that truce held. We didn’t seen nasty attack ads from either side.
Fast forward to 2012, Romney had a horrid time against the political midgets he faced. Bachmann, Santorum, Pizzadude, Governor Oops and Captain Moonbase? All the first tier rivals had decided to sit out the 2012 cycle - Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal etc. It was a rare ‘pure economy’ election in 2012 (the previous time the economy was roughly as bad was 1980 with Carter-Reagan, if you remember that was the oil crisis, ‘stagflation’ etc. But even then Carter was also faced with the Soviet Union having invaded Afghanistan and the Iran-hostage crisis, so it was at least as much a foreign policy election as a bad economy election in 1980). Romney was THE only legitimate ‘business dude’ of the whole field of 2012 and yet he couldn’t squash these pretender political dwarfs. Not until each personally self-destructed (pizzadude’s mistress, Rick Perry forgetting how to count to three, Gingrich exposing himself to be a genuine lunatic as in moon-crazy literally luna-tic). The prolonged primary season in 2012 did genuinely damage Romney severely, including his ‘self deportation’ comments he said that cost him the swing state of Colorado and put New Mexico beyond reach, all before the general election season had even started. As we saw, the 2012 season brought tons of damaging videotape about Romney and the long process had many eminent conservatives saying bad things about him. Romney’s eventual 2012 loss to Obama was not due to the primary damage (he died because of the 47% video) but where the ‘economy dude’ should have run away with the 2012 election beating the ‘law professor’ sitting President, instead Romney failed.
The prolonged primary process of 2008 did not damage Obama but the prolonged primary process of 2012 severely damaged Romney. Romney was forced into pandering to the extreme Tea Party wing of the Republican party to try to seem the most conservative and his political midget rivals kept taking pot-shots at him in those interminable debates we had at times two per week. Then he had to backpeddal all those outrageous statements in reversing his positions into the general election so much, that Obama even mocked Romney with the jokes about Romnesia. The 2012 GOP nomination fight was great political theater yes, a clown circus and a ‘reality TV’ series about who would be the last candidate standing. But the long nasty process damaged Romney far far worse than anything Obama got from Hillary in 2008. And Hillary in 2008 was a FAR more dangerous political opponent than Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann or Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry.
2012 was the first Presidential election where we saw the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United being applied. That meant there was no limit to how much money a given rich guy could give to a single candidate, through ‘Super PACs’. There were at least 7 Billionaires who joined into this exclusive poker game of 2012 to buy themselves a President (Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess, Bill & Richard Marriott, Julian Robertson, Harold Simmons, Frank Vandersloot). And this year we have already seen the Koch Brothers join this exclusive poker game already at the primary stage so we could say its 9 Billionaires already and counting. Billionaires Foster Friess and Sheldon Adelson kept Santorum and Gingrich in the primary race long past where their own funds had dried up. So where the ‘normal’ process would force weak candidates out, simply as their money ran out, the Citizens United decision now allowed a single Billionaire to keep a given candidate going for weeks past their expiration date - again damaging the eventual winner prolonging the masochistic stage of the process.
2016 IS NOT 2012
2012 was a disaster for Romney. We have no idea who will win 2016. Someone will eventually be nominated by the Republican party. But 2016 will be a far bigger nightmare for that eventual winner. Because its not like 2012 for a few very big reasons. First off, the field is not dwarfs this time. 2012 featured total novices to the Presidential primary race and absolute wacko candidates with no chance of winning. Now in 2016 we see some of those coming back - improved arguably and if nothing else, at least now with more experience, like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum. We see an earlier (and stronger) finalist than either of those, returning in Mike Huckabee. We see the big names from those waiting for their chance now making their first moves like Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker. The assembled field in 2016 is the strongest its been, arguably ever. And as Mitt Romney wisely bowed out, there is no clear front runner (at least yet). With probably more than twelve actual candidates running, its possible Iowa will be won with less than 20% of the total Republican votes (in 2012 when Romney faced 6 legitimate rivals, the winners in the popular vote of the caucus day, Romney and Santorum both, got 25% of the vote. Yes, winning Iowa in 2016 with less than 20% is VERY plausible, almost probable). Its possible the next contest, New Hampshire will also be won with only about 20% of the votes and very likely by a different winner.
The same is true of Billionaire support. In 2012 it was Romney, everybody knew that and the primary process was just a ‘going through the motions’ game. Four of the 7 Billionaires were already Romney supporters essentially guaranteeing he can’t lose as long as he didn’t stumble himself. Of the remainder, while Sheldon Adelson gave millions to Gingrich, Adelson also openly said he’d be giving money to Romney after Gingrich was out... There were no good ‘bets’ in a poker game when there were no ChrisChristies or JebBushes or MikeHuckabees to wager against a MittRomney. In 2016 there is a wealth of choice, very promising candidates. The Koch Brothers (richest supporters in US election history) held their ‘primary’ where they indicated that 3 candidates are worthy of Koch money: Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. They also told their rivals what were the stakes in this poker game: 889 million dollars. Yes, already now a year before the formal 2016 primary season even starts, Koch brothers and their rich supporters have raised the ante by 10-fold. They committed almost a Billion dollars to ensure their candidate wins. This is not a game for the squeamish.
Mitt Romney believed he had a real chance for returning in 2016 and was the right man (lets just politely ignore his delusions here now). When Romney contacted his rich supporters, they said no way. Probably they said ‘Hell, no!’ They weren’t about to throw good money after bad. Mitt got the message and bowed out. Nobody knows the relevance of money in US politics better than Romney the richest guy ever to run, who had to bankroll his own campaign back in 2008 when most of the money was going to McCain. The Mittster knows you can’t be viable without serious money. We heard in the press that Romney supporters were now preferring Jeb Bush (which is why Mitt now is so keen to support Marco Rubio, he hates Jeb Bush and the Bush dynasty). So yeah take Ohio Governor John Kasich or Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker or Louisiana Governor Bobby Gindal (Republicans love nominating Governors) these are all potentially strong candidates and far more viable than Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum were in 2012. This time Billionaires can play ‘Presidential Roulette’ for real, each picking one candidate (or even more than one) and seeing which Billionaire ends up owning the President.
Now inspite of strong candidates, some will stumble (my three-part plan is, oops) while others have skeletons that come out (the many loves of the pizzaman) while others will self-implode by moronic megalomania (moonbase!). So we don’t really know. Chris Christie’s early form is remarkably weak, reminds me of Rudy Giuliani’s ‘inevitable’ campaign in 2008. But I don’t remember a field this wide by either party in recent memory with this many strong candidates including this many experienced candidates as we have now. And clearly many pundits have already written on similar themes. So let me now go to my main contention. The math.
DELEGATE MATH IS BRUTAL IN 2016
Before, in all recent years, there was a stage when all meaninful rivals had to quit. Their campaign was no longer mathematically plausible to get a majority of delegates. The front-runner had achieved a majority or enough of a plurality that it became hopeless for the others. Obviously some were not meant to be and entered the contest on hopes and wishes rather than real merit (Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty in 2012, TV actor Fred Thompson in 2008). There are always some of those on both sides, who quickly fall by the wayside as they are last in the early primaries and their modest budget runs out and nobody rushes in to support a ‘loser’ (like on Democratic side too, in 2008 Joe Biden and John Edwards).
The process is fairly consistent with both parties, that usually the guy who was last in the latest round of votes, drops out next. The field narrows from 6 to 5 to 4 to 3 in the first two months of the campaign. This weeding out of weak candidates is also supported by the party leadership. The party would encourage the candidates who clearly are not going to win, to quit - promising future support the next time around, like how Romney was persuaded to quit surprisingly early in the 2008 primary race against McCain. The party leaders and big donors told the Mittster, next time. Wait for next time. Don’t destroy the party and damage McCain with a pointless run now, you made your point, you are a strong candidate, we will support you - next time.
And even if the candidate was obstinately stubborn and just soldiered on with a shoestring budget like Mike Huckabee in 2008, then the big TV ad budget states would kill them off. California, Texas, New York, etc those primaries are decided by TV budgets not by shaking hands of voters at breakfast meetings. And only after he was mathematically eliminated, did Huckabee stop running. Meanwhile Ron Paul made it his life’s mission to run in every election, and to run all the way to the Convention, contesting every race. As his support comes from the Libertarian wing of the party, who stand against many major positions held by the GOP, Ron Paul could count on a steady if always slight support base in every state. And he had a strong grass roots organization, he ran an efficient shoestring campaign and kept at it. All the way to the end. Like he did in 2012.
MATH BASED ON 5 VERY LIKELY CANDIDATES
This is now different in 2016. Lets take five top tier or second tier candidates. First off, I think its safe to say Rand Paul won’t win the nomination or even get to be Veep in 2016. Its his first rodeo but he is a Paul and his dad Ron Paul built a loyal passionate following and diligently toured the whole nation and all the primaries and caucuses. What Rand Paul needs to do in 2016 is to show the Ron Paul supporters that he is the next Paul. He has to complete that transition. To win them over. He has enough of the same message to resonate rather easily. But Rand Paul has to go now visit all states, to ensure everyone sees he is the real thing and they should switch their Ron Paul passion from the father to the son. Thats why Rand Paul has to run now, he can’t wait. And that is why Rand Paul has to run in all 50 states.
Rand Paul is not quite as weirdo as his dad so he has more of a cross-over potential to the rest of the Republican party (but he’s still quite out there, he won’t win the nomination in 2016). His natural instinct for example on the vaccinations debacle clearly shows he is Ron Paul’s son and he will easily be the darling of the tiny Libertanian wing of the Republican Party. Normally that is pretty well a kiss of death except not so fast. Rand Paul is all but guaranteed to win his home state of Kentucky. Note that his dad never won his home state of Texas. Rand Paul is already ‘ahead of the game’ compared to his dad who made a lifelong career of running for the Presidential nomination. And even if Rand Paul didn’t have Koch money, he has Ron Paul grassroots and youth support. So he won’t have to suffer in poverty for the 2016 season. So lets now park Rand Paul and go to another ‘radical’..
FAST FORWARD ON CRUZ CONTROL
Ted Cruz. Can you imagine Ted Cruz accepting ‘party’ push to quit? To step aside and compromise his Tea Party devotions ‘for the good of the party’? No way. And except for another Texan running, Ted Cruz is guaranteed to win the Texas Republican primary. So he has already Koch money. And he’s the obvious front-runner for the Tea Party wing of the Republican party. Yes, some other Tea Partier could come and rain on Ted Cruz’s parade (Ben Carson) but as far as a sitting Senator can go, Ted Cruz is the Tea Party’s darling. And he makes for excellent - if often inflamatory - soundbites. My point being, Ted Cruz is not gonna quit the race. He is going to the end, why? Because there is strong Tea Party support among Republican voters all across the nation. And as many ‘mainstream wimps’ will be in the race pandering to the ‘lamestream media’ the Tea Party will be cheering Ted Cruz to continue on his crusade.
Notice that Ted Cruz doesn’t need to win this time, its his first national race, he just needs to win some and build his name and maybe even get a VP nomination out of it (this time). No doubt Ted Cruz believes he is the next Ronald Reagan and soon his time will come. It won’t be 2016. But he has every incentive to run all the way and no incentive whatsover to quit half way in. Ted Cruz has already proven he will put Ted Cruz interests ahead of the Republican Party interests every time. And Ted ain’t for quitting. And he wins the Texas GOP primary just by being a Texan Republican (assuming Governor Oops isn’t anymore innit too). The only slight snag from Cruz’s point of view is that Texas votes so early this year (by the current calendar) that the delegates will be awarded proportionately. He won’t get all of them but he gets the largest number.
AND THE BEST 'OFF SEASON' CAMPAIGN OSCAR GOES TO..
Next up Mike the Huckster Huckabee. Mike took 8 years to prepare for 2016. He ran very well in 2008 finishing second in the delegate hunt behind McCain and built himself a solid base of support. Then he did a brilliant thing to prepare for his second run. Where other rivals did nothing to improve from their past failure (Santorum) or decided to buy new smarter-looking eyeglasses (Rick Perry) Huckabee went where Republican voters show up religiously even more often than to Church - Fox News. He had his Fox TV show to let everybody in the Fox voting population (a subset of Republican voters) know exactly who is Mike Huckabee and how genuinely conservative he really is. Note how different this is from say Morning Joe Scarborough who went to the ‘communist’ network MSNBC where Joe is often accused of being a RINO (Republican In Name Only) for daring to occasionally agree with Obama etc.
Of runners-up in the GOP, Huckabee got more delegates in 2008 than Romney (when McCain won) and Huckabee 2008 totals are more than what Santorum or Gingrich or any other rivals to Romney got in 2012. And this was before Huckabee did his Fox tour of duty. I think Mike Huckabee in 2016 will be a VERY strong candidate who - like the wily fox he is - is keeping his powder dry for now, not wanting to draw any fire from the wide field, preferring to stay just under the ‘front runner’ status. Chris Christie or Jeb Bush or Scott Walker take the heat for being front runner for now, when it doesn’t matter at all. Huckabee knows he’s very well set to repeat his first-place finish in the Iowa Caucuses. And if you remember Huckabee in the debates, he is smart, witty, folksy, fast-thinking and spontaenously funny. He easily excels in TV debate formats. He’s a far stronger candidate than the early polling and pundits now think. Huckabee (like Chris Christie and Jeb Bush) has known for 8 years he will run in 2016 and that he would sit out 2012. But Huckabee wants to re-emerge suddenly into the first debates and win Iowa, to suddenly capture the front-runner status, rather than how Chris Christie and Jeb Bush have tried to create the inevitability reputation now, a year too early, and face the hostility that brings (remember Hillary’s inevitability campaign of 2008).
So Huckabee doesn’t want to peak too early. So yeah, lets think Huckabee. Well, he’s the past Governor of Arkansas. He is definite to win his home state and likely to take the largest haul of delegates from Iowa. As one of the front-runners with a well-established track record and essentially being vetted already for no skeletons in his closet, Huckabee should be a safe bet for some seriously religious Billionaire, in the style of Sheldon Adelson for example. So Huckabee is a safe bet to run long into 2016 and to win his home state for sure and will do well with Iowa’s religious values-voters and Huckabee personally has already run the gamut of Iowa ‘retail politics’ visiting all parts of the state. Now he only needs to remind his past supporters that he’s back. So lets now move onto the Florida duel.
FLORIDA ELIMINATION ROUND
I think the Florida primary will kick off one 2016 hopeful. I think its a very bad sign for a nominee if you can’t win your home state in the primary. Especially if its such a crucial swing-state as Florida. As we have Marco Rubio the sitting senator from Florida and Jeb Bush the former Governor of the state running for the Presidential nomination (not confirmed yet but both seem very eager), the Florida primary would be like an elimination round in professional sports. Winner continues, loser goes home. Its conceivable that one has dropped out before or even decides not to run. But its extremely unlikely that both decide not to run as their recent involvement has become only stronger in the past weeks. And as Florida is an early contest (currently scheduled for first week of March) its most likely the one candidate in it or if its both then both, will have budgeted to remain in the race at least until their home primary. And if there is a familiar name, well known Floridian Republican in the race, and as its very expensive to compete in Florida (expensive TV advertising budgets) its almost certain the Florida winner will be one of these two.
So after the Florida primary we have one of Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio still in the game - who has won the most of Florida’s delegates (but like Texas if the primary is in March it will be dividing its delegates proportionately). Rubio is safe for Koch millions in support (they really liked him) and Bush would inherit much of Mitt Romney’s business wing of the party, including many rich supporters plus of course the deep Bush family connections. Jeb Bush just held a donor dinner where the entry ticket cost 100,000 dollars in donations to the Jeb campaign. Plus Jeb is requesting his financial supporters to commit to a non-compete clause to promise not to give money to his rivals, something his brother George Dimwit Bush pioneered. After we exclude Billionair SuperPAC money, Jeb Bush in this cycle will very likely be the best funded Republican candidate. So Jeb won’t be running out of money either.
Meanwhile look at Marco Rubio. He is not as well known as these other contenders but he is exciting audiences when he speaks. He was the big hit at the Koch meeting and wherever recently members of the GOP have gathered. Many think of Rubio as the ‘Republican Obama’ in how well he connects to the audiences, and being the young fresh face of the future. Rubio can well steal early debates and get passions to support his campaign, but whichever, Bush or Rubio fails to win Florida, that campaign is deeply in trouble that Wednesday morning. Well, whether that loser in Florida quits or not, its certain the Floridian who wins Florida is either Bush or Rubio with a massive haul of delegates in his pocket just from the Sunshine State.
BORN TO RUN
Then there is the fat man. Chris Christie has known he’s running in 2016 for many years already. Thats why he embraced Obama in 2012. He has built his whole campaign around being the ‘most electable’ and he’s been doing some very obvious pandering in preparing for the 2016 run like his decision on pigs legislation in New Jersey (just to win Iowa votes in the caucuses). Say what you will and whatever you may think of his abrasive style and Bridgegate etc, when Chris Christie is on the ballot for New Jersey Republicans no matter who else is running, even if Ronald Reagan was against him, they will vote for their guy, the personal friend of Bruce Springsteen (fellow New Jerseyan). Christie has such strong name recognition, and where many big names are very conservative, Christie appeals to the moderate wing of the party, he will do well in early states picking up delegates. And then he will win in Jersey. Chris Christie has worked hard to be favored with rich New York financial district money so he wont’ be a pauper candidate either.
Ok I said 5 candidates. See what has happened? We have already handed out the delegates in the primaries of Kentucky, Texas, Arkansas, Florida and New Jersey. Now two more ‘almost backyard’ regions. Chris Christie? He is almost certain to win New York as well (remember, this is the Republican primary, obviously New York in the general election will vote for Hillary who used to be the Senator from New York). The New York Republicans have known Chris Christie for a long time, they’ve seen the way Christie has been hounded recently by ‘liberal media’ and various ‘Bridegate’ etc investigations, which many Republicans see as politically motivated. And Christie has regularly worked in issues across the New York-New Jersey state line, including the massive hurricane of 2012. It would be a minor miracle of Christie doesn’t win the New York primary (especially as its one of the first this cycle, when name recognition matters even more than later in the cycle when debates etc have had their chances to change minds). New York is incredibly expensive TV market so the home field advantage of Christie being known is priceless there. However, like Texas and Florida, New York is scheduled to be early and if so, it will see its delegates awarded proportionately.
Then there is Huckabee’s backyard. Against McCain in 2008 Huckabee won most of the ‘bible belt’ deep South. He won in Alabama, Louisiana, West Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee and his home state of Arkansas. These voters wanted Huckabee rather than McCain and they then saw McCain lose to Obama. They begged for Huckabee to run again in 2012 against Romney, who went to lose to Obama. They are so ready to vote for Huckabee now, the new and improved and stronger Huckabee, in 2016. So if Bobby Jindal is in it by the time Louisiana votes, Jindal will steal that state but Huckabee might also pick up Mississippi this time. These Bible Belt deep South states will be happy to vote for the past Baptist Church pastor, bass-playing genuine Southern boy and ex Governor from Arkansas who for years was a fixture on the weekends of Fox News.
WHEN THE MATH TURNS AGAINST REASON
So now we have the nightmare. These 5 candidates (after one of Bush/Rubio drops out), if they win their home states, and we give New York to Christie and give the Bible Belt to Huckabee - have taken 30% of all delegates! There are only 70% of delegates left. Yet none of the 5 have amassed over 15% of delegates. So even if one ‘catches fire’ and wins literally HALF of the remaining delegates, that candidate will not get more than 45% of all delegates - and cannot win the nomination outright by a majority of delegates before the convention!
Note that it only gets worse if we add some other semi-strong candidates, if Scott Walker takes his home state of Wisconsin, John Kasich takes his home state of Ohio, etc. So many of the biggest states are given to DIFFERENT candidates - New York, Texas, Florida, and so much of the delegates will be gone to candidates who won’t quit - this is not gonna end. The math is ‘obvious’ to any competent campaign manager who can see - Chris Christie can’t win it all. Jeb Bush can’t win it all. Ted Cruz can’t win it all. Mike Huckabee can’t win it all. Even Rand Paul might pick up a couple of obscure Caucus states to add to his totals (his dad Ron Paul won 3 caucus states in 2012).
Because it is VERY clear that Rand Paul won’t quit and will run to the end - while its also clear Rand Paul won’t win it. And simultaneously Ted Cruz won’t quit and will run to the end - almost certainly not wining the delegate count either. That means that for a Mike Huckabee or Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio or Chris Christie - they will have MORE delegates and not finish ‘dead last’ - they have absolutely no reason to drop out. Any one debate can suddenly make a candidate win that next Tuesday (look at Gingrich in 2012) and each candidate believes they are one lucky break away from a winning streak. Because its certain Rand Paul and Ted Cruz won’t quit, then none of these other 5 I mentioned has any incentive to quit. In fact its the opposite.
MISERABLE SCENARIOS
Even if they don’t win it, anyone from the Top 2 can become the Presidential Nominee. And strictly by math, the guy headed to 3rd standing can still convince himself/herself that there is enough delegates split across many rivals that even the third-place finished might win the nomination in a ‘brokered convention’ condition. The math gets really brutal now.
Anyone of the positions of 2nd to 4th can easily become the Vice Presidential nominee (with 5th and 6th ranked guys even entertaining that possibility) and anyone finishing from 3rd to 6th can at least expect a chance to become Secretary of State. But if one has some delegates from the early proportional states - and then drops out - while 4 other rivals continue - that guy who dropped out will eliminate his own chances to be a ‘king maker’ in the end. Any competent campaign manager can do this math when they see the field and start to count. The game now in 2016 - because of the delegate math - means there is a STRONG incentive for STAYING IN the race, rather than dropping out.
So this time, the primary season runs all the way to the bitter end. Not with two ‘polite’ friends like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton chatting with each other on debates but vicious nasty TV ad wars screaming at each other on ever more atrocious lies designed only to destroy. Suddenly we have very interesting permutations of the delegate game, and imagine how much the party would be torn if the guy who got most delegates will NOT get the nomination because of some ‘back room dealing’ with the next tier rivals.
REVENGE OF THE MATH
So now to the REVENGE of the math. We had 7 Billionaires already wanting to play this exclusive game of Presidential Primary Poker in 2012. Now there are better candidates as ‘bait’ and everybody saw the way the Colbert Report exposed the Super PAC details, so the Billionaires learned there are almost no rules to this game. This year its very likely all those 7 Billionaires will return but will find a much more ‘favorable’ candidate closer to that individual Billionaire’s personal interests than in 2012, who is still a top tier or second tier candidate that can run to the end. But its quite likely that more Billionaires now show up, as we can see, starting with the fourth and fifth richest men of the nation, Charles and David Koch. Why? Because in 2012 the change was fresh in the system (Citizens United court ruling). Because in 2012 it wasn’t yet clear how much control such a rich donor could have. And neither the Billionaires nor the political candidates had yet fully included the Citizens United ruling into their campaign strategy. Now we see how much that has changed such as the Koch Brothers having their endorsement and screening meeting a year before the first caucuses and primaries even start, and televising part of that meeting and issuing a press release about how big the stakes will be this time 889 million dollars committed by the millionaire-friends conservative club run by the two Koch Brothers. Now any smart campaign manager has already contacted potential Billionaires to try to ‘lock’ that rich dude’s money to his/her candidate, early.
So do you like dirt? This is gonna be the ugliest dirtiest campaign ever seen. The US process has slowly degenerated into the slime pit of ‘Swift Boating’ lies in political ads. SuperPACs that are not controlled by the candidate make it only worse. But now its literally the highest stakes poker game ever played. Each top tier candidate has literally hundreds of millions in their Billionaire and supporter money. They play on into each successive round with unknown duration of the poker game and each gambler eager to just raise the stakes. Each debate is an opportunity to strike a blow so strong that it wins you that week’s primary round. Last time round, Tim Pawlenty famously pulled his punches and didn’t follow through at the TV debate after an attack he launched on TV ads against Romney. That was seen as weakness and a major campaign strategy failure and cost Pawlenty his run. All front-runners this time were WATCHING that TV debate last time. This time nobody ‘pulls a Pawlenty’.
But consider, if we have 15 rivals in the early debates on a 90 minute televised debate, each candidate gets to speak only twice! They have precious little time to even try to play nice. They have only two chances to make their mark and many will take that as their chance to swing. At who? The guy who happens to be on the top at that moment. So the debates will get ever more fierce and as there are so many candidates, with genuinely opposing views on anything from immigration to defense to (gosh yes its true) science - there is plenty of topics to light up fireworks. And thats before we consider the volatility of the candidates.
Look at Chris Christie, look at Ted Cruz. Are these the epitomes of restraint and control in a confrontational situation ‘with rules’. With journalists? These two will surprise us with how much discipline their campaign managers will install into them through debate practise and then finally, at one surprising debate, it blows off and wow, we’ll have epic yelling and theatrics.
REPUBLICANS WILL BEG SCOTUS TO CHANGE ITS MIND
But most of all, the SuperPAC money. Republican voters will hate Citizens United by the summer of 2016 and plead for the Supreme Court to reverse itself, and beg for Congress to outlaw it. The gambling Billionaires know that as long as the strong rivals are in the game, they themselves have to throw more money at their own candidate to remain in the game. They picked a strong candidate, they want to win. Then they see one of the rivals makes ‘underhanded’ attacks at their candidate, so then the vicious circle starts with the punch-back. Very soon truth falls by the wayside and exaggerated claims appear, and then outright lies about the rivals (ie swift-boating). Don't believe me? Look at all the lies perpetuated by the Koch brothers attack ad machine in the 2014 midterm elections. And this is a game where each player is incentivized to try to land a knock-out punch to force the rival out of the game as soon as possible.
This will not be ‘gentle’ disagreements as we saw with Obama and Hillary in 2008. Reagan’s 11th commandment (never say bad things about fellow Republicans) will be out the window. The sooner the nastier the more loudly its said, on all TV channels, the better. They will not wait until April to start the nasty hits on TV and radio ads. It is in each gamers’ self-interest to not fall victim to this inevitable tactic and rather, to launch the attacks early - and hard - and nasty. And as the campaign cannot directly control the SuperPAC, it means ever more control to the Super PAC manager who has an itchy finger who feels his candidate is now struggling and needs a bit of a push....
The SuperPACs cannot create clones of the Candidate. SuperPACs cannot go create new policies or positions for any candidate. They can’t buy surrogates either. But what SuperPAC millions CAN do is advertising. And so they will buy the airwaves of all the next upcoming states with Primaries and Caucuses. You thought 2012 was nasty? haha it was a Disney movie compared to 2016. There will be more Billionaires with more strong candidates, and each Billionaire will throw more money into the pot. And almost all that money has to go into TV advertising which very soon will all be nasty. So those airwaves will be stuffed with nasty Republican-hating attack ads about the front-runners.
First, because this is what the SuperPAC money CAN do and there is very little else that the money can be effectively used for. Secondly, because negative advertising works. Thirdly because the above Delegate Math shows that at least 5 and as many as 7 strong candidates can run to the end of the 2016 primary cycle, each SuperPAC will attempt to go very nasty, very early, very hard to kick any of the strongest rivals out. The SuperPACs of the Billionaires all will be preoccupied with attempting to land knock-out punches to take major rivals out completely. To finish them off. To quote German WW2 tank general Heinz Guderian (who invented the modern mechanized war we later would call ‘blitzkrieg’ and which has direct lineage to ‘shock and awe’ tactics of the Gulf War) “Don’t tickle but smash.” There will be early modest ‘tickling’ annoying negative ads by the rivals but by the time ‘winner take all’ stakes start in the delegate hunt (mid March) the SuperPACs will all go ‘full nuclear’ on the most savage attack ads yet seen in US politics. And now its not one rich Mitt Romney ruling the airwaves with endless cash against political midgets. This time its from 5 to 7 strong rivals each with their own Billionaire sugar daddy bankrolling the hate campaign. All these will be against fellow Republicans, while Hillary sits safely isolated from any attack ads on the Democratic side.
And even as each round of ever more vicious attack ads, going from facts to fiction, attempt to knock out rivals, most will not quit EVEN if they lose badly that next Primary cycle. Because of the Delegate Math - dropping out by one of the top 5 to top 7 rivals would mean surrendering any leverage at the convention - means each rival will continue no matter how bad it gets, believing, they still have something to gain if they continue, and everything to lose if they quit. So they then return only more bitter and mad, and want to get even, so next round their SuperPAC attacks - and ever more bitter debates - hound that particular rival severely and viciously. It will only get worse.
END OF THE ELDERS
Will they listen to reason? From who? Party ‘elders’ is who? The Bushes? Come on, thats Jeb Bush’s dad and brother (counting Darth Vader ie Dick Cheney and his pals like Rumsfeld into that camp too). Or what, Romney? Mr clueless 47% the rich snob kid who nobody liked in school? No they ain’t gonna listen to the Mittster. What about McCain? The Grumpy Old Man who wants to go bomb Iran? Who had the ‘sense’ to pick Sarah Palin? Yeah lotsa credibility there, Mr Maverick. Or will they listen to Orange-face? Speaker Boehner can’t even keep his Republican Congressional delegation in line. He will be as effective as the puppet that Jon Stewart used on the Daily Show to portray past Republican party leader Michael Steele. Or what about Mr Turtle-face Mitch McConnell the Senate GOP leader who seems baffled to find his tactics from a few months ago, now used by the DEMs against him? No, the party elders will be far more hapless against a Presidential Hopefuls free-for-all than what they have managed against the Tea Party revolt in Congress.
In 2012 we saw the first primary season with Citizens United unlimited funding. At that time the conservative Billionaires had no strong viable candidate options other than Mitt Romney. So it was not a real contest. This time there are from the start at least 7 or 8 viable candidates plus another bunch of hopefuls. Its likely some will falter, have their oops moment or be caught in some scandal. But also its possible one of the dark horses catches fire and if there are 5 somewhat evenly successful ‘front runners’ then a ‘minor’ candidate doesn’t need to get more than say 15% in a given state to be a Top 3 finisher in that state to boost the morale, and with a lucky break, 25% might win you a state. Because the field is so wide, there are alwasy some votes siphoned off by each of the niche voting blocks who now have a fave candidate, and exceptionally many of those voting blocks can find a ‘strong’ candidate perfectly suited for them. Compare to 2012. The evangelicals had who? Rick Santorum who was never going to win. The Tea Party had who? Michelle Bachmann? Seriously? Now the evangelicals have Mike Huckabee and the Tea Partiers have Ted Cruz. Far far stronger candidates for their factions. Same for the Libertarians. They knew Ron Paul was never gonna win. But in Rand Paul they see far more hope, not necessarily winning in 2016 but a strong performance now would mean a possible front-runner status for Rand in 2020 or 2024. They’ll take that as very positive development and they won’t see voting for Rand Paul as a futile gesture in the way that voting for Ron Paul always was.
The Delegate Math means that at least 5 and as many as 8 candidates stay in the race all the way to the end. It means its VERY likely that no winner emerges from the primary season to generate a Republican Party winner with the majority of delegates. Then its a fight the rest of the way, with potentially hated insider trading back-room deals to try to find a solution before the Convention starts in June. And its very possible that almsot half the party will hate the compromise cooked behind closed doors. That in turn means a volatile Convention with tons of angry leaks to the press, nasty Tweets etc.
All this happens in a political environment where Hillary is already in the clear, having won her contest almost unopposed, and sits back and laughs at the silliness with her inevitable visits to Meet the Press, sounding Presidential and like the only adult in the room. All while her team meticlously collects all video of the Republican attack ads and debate quotes, to be used in the coming months against whoever ends up the final nominee out of that chaos.
ONE COULD CATCH FIRE
Now, this is still based on the premise that there is no front runner and assuming one does not emerge. As they say, Democrats like to fall in love, Republicans like to fall in line. Democrats are quite happy to pick a total unknown who excites their fancy, just look at Obama (or Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter). Republicans always want to nominate the ‘next in line’. That was Romney in 2012 who ran against McCain before; that was McCain in 2008 who ran against Bush The Lesser before, etc. But now there is no obvious ‘next in line’. And the GOP itself is split across the Tea Party rebellion fault line.
But one candidate could still have things fall his (or her) way. So imagine Huckabee, has a good showing in Iowa, has a decent finish in New Hampshire and heads onto win South Carolina and Nevada. He could then solidify his lead. Or imagine Christie, does ok in Iowa, but then wins in New Hampshire and has a very strong win in New York. And a couple of rivals stumble a bit and Christie has a strong debate and wins a Southern state like South Carolina, and suddenly its Christie’s nomination. Or Bush could be something similar. But if none of the 5 I mentioned actually stumbles, and each wins his home state, and we give New York also to Christie and most of the Bible Belt states to Huckabee - then we do have the situation where 30% of the votes are split among the five and none can win a majority even if they take half of what is left. Even if one candidate catches fire, he (or she) might still well end up with less than 50% of the delegates at the end and be forced into a brokered convention and/or some serious backroom deal-making.
LETS DO ONE SCENARIO MATH
So lets still stick to only those 5 candidates. Lets map this out a bit, what could the reality look like. Lets start with Rand Paul. His dad got 7% of the delegates in 2012 even as he only won 3 states that had caucuses (Ron Paul actually was the final winner of the Iowa Caucuses when the actual delegates were allocated months after the caucus day which declared Romney the first winner and later a tie with Santorum then declared Santorum the winner). So the legwork was done in 2012, and Rand Paul has already said openly he prefers caucuses rather than primaries, that is where the Paul system works best. Lets give Rand Paul only the same delegates his dad received, and lets add his home win of Kentucky. That gives Rand Paul 9% of the delegates.
Then lets go to Ted Cruz. The 2012 exit polls said that 21% of the total electorate had a favorable view of the Tea Party and 87% of those voted Republican. As Obama/Democrats got more votes overall, that gives us a rough number of 34% of the Republican voters having a positive view of the Tea Party (the questionnaire allowed neutral view and negative view). These will not all vote for Ted Cruz or the Tea Party, as many for example ‘evangelical’ Christian values-voters may also have a positive view of the Tea Party. It is more of a ceiling. If you are a Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann or Ben Carson or Ted Cruz, that 34% is your vote ceiling if many candidates are in it who then will offer something closer to the business wing or military wing or moderate wing or liberian wing etc of the GOP. Now, what should we give Ted Cruz? If he runs the full race, and as long as the other Tea Party rivals quit rather soon so he has this mostly to himself, I think we can safely give half of the Tea Party support to Ted Cruz. Thats 17%. If there is only one or two rivals, then 17% will rarely win you a state primary, even if you are ‘lucky’ in some state and score say double that (34%). Like in 2012 when Santorum took 20% of the votes but only 10% of the delegates (as Romney won most states). But if there are 5 or more contestants running till the end, and you average 17% of the votes, on a good day (doubling that) you can easily win a state with 34%. As Ted Cruz also is the clear winner in his home State, Texas the biggest Republican state, we can rather safely give Ted Cruz 17% of the delegates.
Then Huckabee. The 2012 exit poll said 26% of US voters were evangalical religious voters and 78% of them voted for Romney (inspite of concerns about his Mormon religion). That gives a Republican Party supporter ratio of 38% who are evangalical voters roughly speaking. Again lets say that only half of those vote for Huckabee, and again that his votes will turn evanly to delegates, that would mean 19% of the delegates that would now belong to Mike Huckabee. That compares to 20% of the votes cast and 13% of the delegates he acquired in 2008 when most of the time he ran alone against the prohibitive favorite John McCain. I think 19% of final delegates allocated to Huckabee is low-balling it, he may well hit 25% but yeah, lets use this rough number.
So Rand Paul gets 9% of the delegates, Ted Cruz 17% and Mike Huckabee 19%. Lets add those up, we are at 45% of the delegates already used up. If there are only 2 remaining rivals, lets say its Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, they would only have 55% of the delegates left, to divide just between them two. Its almost impossible now, if both do run to the end, for one to get to 50% and its far more likely to be say 30% and 25%.
So lets say its 30% for Jeb Bush, 25% for Chris Christie (remember both have won their home states and Christie also won New York so both have high single digit delegate counts to begin with). Now the five contestants are at 30, 25, 19, 17 and 9. The winner (Jeb Bush 30%) could not even partner alone with number 3 (Mike Huckabee 19%) and generate a majority of delegates (only 49%). Unless he can strike a deal with Chris Christie to accept VP, Jeb Bush will need the help of the number 4 or number 5 guy, to get the nomination. Meanwhile... Chris Christie knows this, that partnering with Jeb Bush means he is only VP but if Christie can convince number 3 Mike Huckabee to be his VP and one of number 4 (Ted Cruz) or 5 (Rand Paul) to support the pair, Chris Christie would secure the nomination for President even as he finished second!!
Can you imagine the negotiations in that situation between Jeb Bush and Chris Christie (who also at this point utterly hate each other for the nastiest lies-filled campaign ever seen, against these two front-runners by each other). Jeb Bush has 30% of the votes, he is not going to accept VP and let Chris Christie at 25% become the top of the ticket. But Christie knows, he can find enough delegates without Jeb Bush, so that Christie himself could be on the top of the ticket. How could Jeb Bush convince Chris Christie NOT to run for President and accept the VP slot instead? It becomes now a huge sales pitch/bribing contest for those who finished third, fourth and fifth, to try to get their support. In this scenario its almost certain the guy who finished third (Mike Huckabee) can haggle the VP slot for himself, because he would be the ultimate king-maker, and he gets to essentially pick will Jeb Bush or Chris Christie get to be the Presidential nominee of the party. And likely Ted Cruz or Rand Paul would have enough leverage to secure the convention keynote speaking slot and promise of Secretary of State if the party wins against Hillary in the general election.
That is just with 5 rivals. Toss in Scott Walker winning his home state of Wisconsin and some Midwestern states. Then toss in John Kasich and Ohio is his, as is very likely big industrial neighbor states like Michigan and Indiana. Bobby Jindal would certainly win his home state of Louisiana and very likely some other Southern states (stealing from Huckabee in the above simplified model). Etc. The more rivals stay till the end, the more evenly-split the final delegate count result will be, and it is possible a number 3 finisher could mathematically construct an alliance where he/she is nominated as President, and the two top finishers (our Jeb Bush and Chris Christie in this scenario) would be out of it. That only requires that the top 2 candidates get less than 50% of the delegates (likely closer to 45%) and then would require herculean political maneouvering by number 3, but yeah, mathematically if we get more than 5 rivals running the full race, this time its quite possible - mathematically plausible but definitely quite unlikely in reality - for number 3 guy to become the nominee.
This all will be discussed in considerable detail as the early delegate math starts to play out - and as none of the major candidates decide to quit. Then the pundits will do math similar to what I did here and come to similar conclusions, its gonna get nasty and it may end up in a brokered convention.
THE SHOW OF SHOWS
Now, I don’t mean any ill will to the Republican Party. I am not a US citizen, I cannot vote in the election, I am just an outside observer who had the fortune to study in the USA and then live and work there for a total of 12 years, observing its politics up-close a lot back in the early days of 24 hour news and before blogs, social media and Twitter. But I am a math nut, a propeller head, and I am surprised so far no big US political pundit has noticed this pretty ‘inevitable’ math.
Yes, its possible one of the field rises fast and becomes the clear front-runner and takes the majority of the votes. But if Huckabee does stay till the end, we know he will, this is his last rodeo and he has really prepared for it. He will get at least the 20% of the total votes he won in 2012, probably much more if the field is wide and Huckabee is seen as a real contender. Rand Paul has to run the full race, he has to prove to his dad’s supporters that he is a true Paul and he should be a safe bet to win more than his dad did in 2012 because he also will win his ie Rand Paul’s home state of Kentucky that dad Ron Paul couldn’t win (and couldn’t win his home state of Texas obviously). Thats 9% in the bank for the Paul family run of 2016. And Ted Cruz? Well he was the Tea Party standard-bearer in this model, it might be someone else, and the vote could be splintered. But as long as SOME semi-viable Tea Party candidate stays in the race till the end - and we know Ted Cruz ain’t gonna quit - then yes, 17% of delegates should be safely in Cruz’s control. That does take out 45% to these special interest groups and the remaining 55% of delegates is not enough, if the field is still wide with stong candidates for the remainder, for any one GOP nominee to win it outright.
This season is very likely headed to an epic conclusion and we may well see a ‘brokered convention’. As a fan of US politics, this is something I’d like to experience on the age of Twitter and social media and 24 hour news and YouTube. Such as shame for the GOP that in the year when Hillary already had so many of the advantages, this is yet another burden helping sink any fleeting chances for the Republican final nominee.
So what do you think? Lets talk nominating politics. Does that math seem inevitable to you too? What wil this mean to the campaign season of 2016 on the Republican side in their primaries, scheduled to start 11 months from now? How do you see it?
Interesting scenario. The real winner would be the radio and television stations carrying the ads...
That said, a number of the candidates have serious weaknesses. Take Ted Cruz - his social position is a turn off for a lot of people. His personality is also a turn off. In the Blue and Purple states, Cruz could end up getting really low vote counts.
Huckabee has similar problems on his social position. But his personality is a winner with a lot of people.
It is going to be fascinating to watch unfold.
I do tend to agree that the Republican Primary is going to do a lot of damage to the candidates, even without the Swift Boat attacks from the Super Pacs.
This could also have a really negative impact on House campaigns. Say Bush wins the nomination. He's been exposed as a cheat, liar, thief, etc. So now the Republican running in a Purple state has Bush hanging over his/her shoulder like the Death Star, letting a Democrat win.
You know, I'm damned glad we dropped cable and went NetFlix. We get a lot of American TV channels on cable, and the American election ads are truly disgusting.
I'll predict ahead of time that when Obama hands over the Presidency to whomever is named Hillary, that those who have been screaming that Obama is a Marxist/Muslim/Kenyan will not apologize for being wrong. I suspect that some of the more rabid will be calling Hillary a Marxist/Muslim/Kenyan by Election Day!
On a final note, this election should also be a boon for popcorn sales.
Posted by: Wayne Borean | February 20, 2015 at 03:22 PM
Just had another thought. This campaign could end up being played like Survivor with candidates making promises of the VP slot to get similar candidates to drop out, with the hope that their support will migrate.
Of course a promise is only as good as its maker, so some interesting contacts might get drawn up...
Posted by: Wayne Borean | February 20, 2015 at 04:26 PM
Hi Wayne
Yeah its really gonna be an interesting show.. lotsa popcorn and staying up late hours for USA debate coverage here in Asia..
I was thinking similar thoughts about the end-game negotiations. So if it were a really widely spread field and the top three guys had say 25%, 22% and 20% of the delegates, obviously the top 2 could not collect an alliance just by the pair of them to be the ticket (only had 47% of delegates) and obviously if number 3 guy with 20% of his own, could convince all other candidates (who finished 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th maybe even 8th, 9th) who control the other 35% to join his coalition, then number 3 guy would be the nominee. Now, how far would the top guy (finished first, 25%) be willing to compromise his positions and make promises to get 2 others to join him? What about the number 2 guy (who got 22% of the votes). He would most definitely go far further, he had seen for weeks before the end that the number 1 guy was probably gonna finish ahead of him. Now, consider number 3 guy. He, first of all, is in the driver's seat for who gets to be the Presidential Nominee. Both of the top 2 guys will have made him the offer to be VP. Now, he had seen the scenario building the longest, but also knew as long as the two top guys didn't break 50%, then he, number 3 guy could still become the Presidential nominee. What would he do? He would SELL HIS SOUL to get that nomination ahead of the two top guys.
So if you're number 4 guy, and you know you can't become VP with the top 2 guys but number 3 guys offers you VP slot? You'd be very interested. What about number 5 guy? He could get Secretary of State (or if he's Lindsey Graham, he could prefer Secretary of Defense, or if Rand Paul, Secretary of the Treasury). Then imagine all the promises made to the 'owners' of those candidates ie their sponsor-Billionaires, to make this deal work. Yes, we will let you Sheldon Adelson have some Las Vegas gambling law changes so we put your casios into 20 states and on federal land in the rest.. Yes, Koch Brothers, we'll let you pollute the nation to your heart's desire. And so forth and so forth...
Now. The Number 1 and Number 2 guys will want the Number 3 guy to commit (to either) as most likely Number 1 and Number 2 will hate each other too much to do the deal between them, and in any case Number 2 guy won't accept VP, he wants to be on the top of the ticket. Meanwhile, Number 3 guy will know he can always be VP if he can't put his own Humpty-Dumpty coalition together but IF he is able to do it, he'll be the Republican nominee and potentially USA's next President..
So now, first, imagine if any of this starts to leak, at various points of the negotiations. What is being promised or asked for under the table, over the table, commitments and promises (and broken promises). Second, what happens if indeed Number 3 guy DOES get his coalition assembled with all the also-ran finalists. Now both Number 1 and Number 2 are out of it. Would they - and their Billionaire backers - and all the states where the Republican voters actually voted for these two top guys - accept that 'decision' or feel that they were stabbed in the back?
Its very likely either - or even both - perhaps even allied - would run as 'independents' against the 'official' Republican rival team led by Number 3 guy. Because Number 1 guy can't give anything to Number 2 guy that Number 2 guy can't do better without Number 1 (ie becoming the boss rather than slave in the President-Vice President pairing) I think if the top 2 guys don't pass 50%, that end game will be a nasty nasty NASTY mess - but again, most interesting to watch. That speculation is obviously too early now but lets see how the two first months go, starting in March we will see if my overall scenario is starting to happen, then we will also know if we have only 3 or 4 viable 'will stay till end' candidates or if there might be 6 or even 8 of them haha... But that 'gaming' theory will be a big pundit topic once the delegate math rules out a clear victory for the front-runner...
Bring out the popcorn indeed...
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | February 20, 2015 at 04:51 PM
"889 Billion dollars committed by the millionaire-friends"
would that be Million dollars instead?
Posted by: Millard Filmore | February 21, 2015 at 12:57 AM
Millard
Yes... should be millions, I'll go fix that. Its a problem where we in mobile tech so often talk in billions so that slips rather easily. Should say 889 million, ie nearly 1 billion dollars, thanks Millard.
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | February 21, 2015 at 07:57 AM
@Wayne
The more rabid opponents have been calling Hillary a Marxist/murderer/witch since Bill's first term, and I don't think the intervening 20 years have softened their views.
Posted by: R | February 22, 2015 at 09:22 AM
@R
And I'll bet that they add Kenyan Muslim to that. Logic is not their strong suit.
Posted by: Wayne Borean | February 22, 2015 at 12:58 PM
@Wayne, logic isn't the Democrats' strong suit, either. It isn't the Tea Partiers refusing to get immunized. It's the Jenny McCarthy crowd and west coast BMW-drivers. The party of science also would rather see oil shipped through rail cars rather than build a safer pipeline (which also uses less energy and carbon to operate than rail cars)
Anyway, Tomi, Sean Trende at RealClearPolitics brought up the possibility of a brokered convention almost a month ago. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/29/what_if_no_one_wins_the_gop_presidential_nomination_125426.html
I don't think it is going to happen since only a few candidates are going to be able to raise the massive sums of money necessary to fund a national campaign. The establishment will determine who between Christie, Bush, and Rubio is most likely to have a chance. Walker may just be the flavor of the month, or he could be the real deal. It's too soon to tell. Certainly the way the left is trying to pounce on everything he is saying makes me believe that they are genuinely worried about his chances, even if he is dull as a doorknob as a public speaker. It might actually backfire since he is getting some fundraising traction out of it now. After all, he didn't win 3 elections in 4 years in the birthplace of progressivism for nothing. He isn't trying to win over the voters on the left since he knows he won't get them. He won in a light blue state by solidifying his base and winning over independents. Remember, he won 3 times by about the same margin Obama did in 2012, so he can obviously attract independents while performing strong with the GOP base.
My guess is that once the debates get started we'll see the money shift to two, maybe three candidates. The establishment isn't that enthusiastic about another Bush/Clinton matchup, and Christie hasn't really recovered from the whole bridge flap, so Rubio might emerge as a dark horse, particularly since he has at least some foreign policy experience. If Walker is not a flash in the pan, then he could bridge the right and independent-leaning wings of the party. Otherwise, it opens the door for Paul.
Unlike the Democratic Party, most GOP primaries are virtually winner take all. Plus the GOP wants to get the nomination over with as soon as possible. Their performance in 2014 relative to 2012 and even 2010 shows that the establishment has learned a lot in the last 2 years. The Tea Party is mostly under control now (the own goal on Homeland Security funding notwithstanding), and I think both sides realize that Hillary's biggest enemy is a drawn out general election campaign. As 2008 showed, she just isn't as good a candidate in real life as she seems to be on paper. She's hoping to run as someone's third term, preferably Bill's but she'd gladly run as Obama's third term if the economy is still humming late next year. But if it isn't, or she gets dragged into a slugfest I think she is more vulnerable than you realize.
Posted by: Catriona | February 25, 2015 at 01:31 AM
I think the other factor is what happens over the next 18 months or so. If all Obama does is wield his veto pen despite the House and Senate sending him bill after bill after bill, it will be harder for the Democrats to portray the GOP as the sole "party of no." After all, Keystone XL had fairly significant bipartisan support, and all sides like to talk the talk on reforming our wildly complicated and wildly unpopular tax code. There is a good chance that the Supreme Court rules against the administration on the health insurance subsidies in June since it isn't a constitutional issue and won't establish precedent. If that happens, it's both a threat and opportunity to both sides. The GOP won't get anywhere with a bid to repeal the whole thing, but at the same time, I don't think the Democrats can succeed by doing nothing and/or trying to force the states to cave in and build their own exchanges. It could be a real opportunity for horse trading, and I think someone like Bill Clinton would have used it as such (e.g. trading the subsidies in exchange for support for Keystone XL, or a corporate tax cut). I'm not sure Obama is interested, though. Bill Clinton faced a Congress at least as, if not more hostile than Obama (they had already impeached Clinton by this time), and he still got more done than when the Democrats controlled Congress. Obama's only legislative achievements were when his party controlled everything with supermajorities. If it stays that way, I think it hurts Hillary more.
On another note, SCOTUS is also highly likely to take same sex marriage off the table in June y making it nationwide. It's legal in 37 states now, and they aren't going to put the genie back in the bottle I think it's an issue with rapidly diminishing political relevance anyway, but unlike abortion, the debate won't be so much about trying to overturn SCOTUS' ruling, but more along the lines of how to balance religious rights, which is far less divisive. There really hasn't been that big an uproar in states where courts have forced the issue, Alabama perhaps being the closest (and that's more a few government officials than a massive popular uprising).
Posted by: Catriona | February 25, 2015 at 02:09 AM
The Democratic establishment seems bent on protecting Hillary at all costs. The Clinton brand took a little bit of a hit today, as it seems Rahm Emanuel will be forced into a runoff by a challenger to his left in order to stay on as Mayor of Chicago. If Elizabeth Warren got into the race, she could force Hillary to tack left. The Democratic establishment definitely doesn't want that to happen, so they seem to be pressuring Warren not to run. If not in 2016, then perhaps in 2018 or 2020, but I think the Democrats will face a Tea Party situation of their own sooner than they think. I'd be curious if Tomi has any thoughts on that.
Posted by: Catriona | February 25, 2015 at 02:35 AM
This is very interesting. PPP is a Democratic polling organization, so they have no real interest in promoting one GOP candidate vs. another.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_22415.pdf
Walker is clearly in the lead (not that it means anything a year before the first primary), but Ben Carson seems to be drawing support from Cruz and Paul. If we have this situation a year from now (a huge IF), in theory someone could walk to the nomination (no pun intended) with about 25% of the vote. It would be much better for Walker if this were February 2016. Both the Democrats and the rest of the GOP will be targeting him right now.
Posted by: Catriona | February 25, 2015 at 03:18 AM
Catriona
Hey, nice comments thanks! Love the discussion on this hobby topic of mine...
First on that Real Clear Politics article by Sean Trende. I remember reading it when he wrote it and it was to me very perceptive. BUT. It does the 'usual' musings of early contests dreaming of a brokered convention. His analysis was based on the broad field of contestants (valid argument) and SuperPAC money (also valid argument) but he didn't discuss the MATH of delegates that makes it almost impossible for a winner to get majority, if these 5 candidates (or someone similar) takes those 30% of the delegates and splits them so evenly. That was my argument. How come nobody yet noticed this GLARING problem in the delegate math... So yeah, there are several good writers who talked of the possibility of a brokered convention already (on the GOP side in 2016) but nobody as far as I have read, has talked of the delegate math and how incredibly warped it makes this season.. that was my point of writing this blog blog and I'm sorry if I wasn't quite clear about that haha...
(PS haha, DEMs not known for logic either, very good)
On the money argument (your first comment) yeah, that 'should' weed out the weaklings but Rand Paul won't need the money, his grassroots organization ran dad Ron Paul to the convention last time. This time Rand Paul gets Koch millions on top of that. So Rand won't be out no matter what. If he quits in the middle of 2016, his career as a national Presidential candidate ends before it even started. He has to finish this time just to secure his dad's organization's transition. That s why he was so much traveling with his dad in 2012.
Ted Cruz? I don't buy your argument that the Tea Party is in control. But even if it was, as long as Ted Cruz (or another 'strong' Teapartier instead of him) is in the race, its a free election inside the GOP, the teapartiers WILL vote for Ted far more than they did for those courting Tea Party favor last time. They have never had a strong candidate yet, in the national Presidential election inside the GOP primary. As to Ted Cruz money? Koch brothers. He is going at least until Texas primary and except if Rick Perry somehow is still in it and learns to speak coherently, Ted will win Texas. After that he ain't quitting, he has too many delegates...
Mike Huckabee i think is the sleeper. I think he is DELIBERATELY playing possum and is off the spotlight so that the big ego stars can burn brightly and be burnt. I can't imagine someone as wily and long-term politico as Huckabee, to not have his finances SET for this run. He HAS to have one of the billionaries in his pocket already. If Huckabee - who clearly has planned this run for the past 6 years since his second place finish in 2008 - was in financial trouble now, he would be sreaming for the headlines on whatever silly topic is in the news now like is Obama a Christian or how much a dictator is Obama for vetoing the pipeline or that judge who ruled against the Obama deportation ban executive order etc. But Mike is really quiet. He could easily get into the spotlight if he needed to. Why isn't he? He HAS to have his budget well in control. So that means he runs at least till Arkansas votes and as long as he doesn't lose at home, he goes all the way.
Now why would anyone else quit, if that someone else has 5% or 10% in the early running and has enough money to run till the end? Jeb Bush has definitely a ton of cash, he ain't quitting (unless he loses Florida). Marco Rubio if he manages to beat Bush in Florida, he has Koch money and is the Koch group darling. He'll very likely have half of the total Koch millions just for himself. The Chris Christie, he has the New York money connection. He ain't gonna be poor and he will win easily the GOP primary of New York state in March, that makes him a frontrunner no matter how poorly he might have done in the first 4 states. So no, I don't see how the money this time weeds out the weaklings. BUT - it is what Jeb Bush is desperately trying, to squash as many of his rivals now with the 'shock and awe' money war.
(I'll respond more)
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | February 25, 2015 at 06:41 PM
Catriona
Now, on GOP leadership, yes they clearly reacted very well to the clown circus of 2012 and changed a lot of the rules in ways to prevent a prolonged and pointless fight in the nomination. they cut the number of debates and installed very severe punishments for breaking rules. And the winner-take-all rules are designed to prevent a tied race. That being said, it is still no guarantee. If we keep to only the 5 I mentioend, and say 30% is split to each, with nobody having 15%. Now the rest will need to play to ONE strong candidate else winner-take all won't matter. Now Ted Cruz the Texan and Mike Huckabee the Arkansas Gov will play well in the West, Colorado, Arizona, Kansas, New Mexico etc. They won't easily go for a Northeasterner like Chris Christie or a moderate like Jeb Bush. Jeb however would play well with the Hispanics so Arizona, New Mexico (and California). Meanwhile Chris Christie and Jeb Bush would play well in the corners, Washington State, Oregon, and the New England states where the Southerners Cruz and Huckabee would not play well. Huckabee would do well in the religious communities in the MidWest and Plains states (similar to his win in Iowa). What about the industrialized states around the great lakes, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania. Sounds promising for Christie but Jeb Bush would play well there too. California could tip it if it goes to whoever otherwise is leading but I see the regions going to different winners and that 70% could go 30-20-10-10. I think its very unlikely that the candidate who wins Arizona also wins Pennsylvania... These 5 (before Ohio Gov Kasich, Wisconsin Gov Walker and LA Gov Jindal) candidates I think would split the nation (And Rand Paul would at least replicate if not exceed his dad in the caucus states now that the Libertarian wing has a more realistic candidate so they won't think of Rand as a protest vote only).
Now on Hillary.. I made a deliberately bold prediction BEFORE the midterms last year, that Hillary's win in 2016 will be double-digits ie a modern landslide. You might want to read that analysis, it is here
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2014/10/hows-this-for-early-prediction-hillary-wins-in-2016-thats-not-bold-but-get-this-by-more-than-12-poin.html
Its a long article but I find that for the first time in any election cycle as far as I have studied it, one party holds all the cards. Demographics, issues, money, organization, candidate, campaign, nomination, convention, all... even surrogates haha. You may find it interesting.
That being said, your point that if its a strong economy Hillary wants to run on 'the Democrats always give good economies' ie both as the second Clinton and the Obama third term. But if the economy turns sour in the next 15 months, then she would suddenly be vulnerable yes. I still think the fundamentals are so much in her favor (it will be the biggest surge election participation in recent US history, because of women voters finally getting to vote for the first woman candidate) that even if the economy turns, she'd still win...
(more to come)
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | February 25, 2015 at 06:58 PM
Catriona
Now to your second comment. The last 2 years of Obama? I think that Obama's relatively low approval ratings (slightly below water) when compared to his record of delivering on most of his campaign promises, and no significant political or personal scandals (no drama Obama) is mostly due to the relentless conservative propaganda painting Obama as a communist Kenyan Muslim terrorist-hugger. Who doesn't love his country haha... Yeah. So in reality, the nation approves of Obama's policies by something like 60 o 40 and on some of his best achievements (ending Iraq war, killing Bin Laden after Bush said he wasn't even interested in chasing Bin Laden, the Detroit bailout, and now the amnesty to kids of illegal immigrants) its far more than 60%. When the reality sets in, ie the heavy propaganda against Obama subsides, the real approval rating will return to roughly what he had in the last election, to a say +5 rating rather than now a -5. When will that happen? Next 18 months.
The Republicans HAVE to understand that they HAVE to target Hillary now, and stop attacking the lame-duck President as he's essentially a spent force. I am CERTAIN that at some point, in their eagerness to paint Hillary as the most evil communist feminist dictator incompetent Putin-appeaser Libya betrayer CLINTON, the conservatives will switch the rhetoric to say - Hillary is even worse than Obama. And then that argument does almost automatically morph into 'Obama good, Hillary bad' and thus Obama STARTS to get even occasional mildly positive endorsements by Fox News and conservative pundits and media. This is the last item that helps Obama's actual approval ratings arise to roughly the 'balanced' opinion in line with how much the nation is aligned with Obama's policies. The one big problem that could ruin Obama's last months is foreign policy (ISIS, Putin, Iran, a domestic shopping mall terrorist attack etc)..
And if Obama can keep his administration from now fumbling the ball in the last 2 years with the almost inevitable big political scandal (Watergate, Iran Hostages, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinski, Weapons of Mass Destruction) and as long as the economy continues to grow, then Obama will be the rare animal who actually leaves office with a positive approval rating haha... That would be a change. But I do think that once the relentless anti-Obama hysteria (Is Obama a Christian, I don't know???) ends (shifting to Hillary) I think there will be a natural - even if mild - uptick to his popularity. And the GOP should not care, they have to now focus on winning 2016 not re-fighting 2008 or 2012 haha..
Meanwhile Obama? He wanted to be the post-partisan President who changed America. He truly tried and he clearly failed, mostly thanks to the GOP who decided to prevent this at all costs. Obama had to try that tactic up to 2014 midterms. He could not be the one who abandons that pursuit, it was his signature promise of the Hope campaign of 2008. Now, is Obama a good verbal fighter and strong political opponent? In the style of Bill Clinton when fighting the Republican Congress run by Newt Gingrich? I think now we've been seeing the 'real Obama' unleashed. He no longer has to attempt that futile hope of post-partisanship. Now he has to defend his legacy. Now he will fight and gosh, he is miles better than Boehner or Mitch McConnell or anyone who could represent Congress on the GOP side. I think the Veto wars in the next two years will be a massive political win for Obama, as the Republicans want to send him highly unpopular legislation and Obama will happily tell the nation why he vetoed it. But it makes the Republicans seem utterly incapable of governing. Obama did for 6 years beg the Repblicans to come and work with him (only to find Boehner would break his promises as he couldn't deliver on his party votes).
In the Clinton - Gingrich fight I think the two sides were more evenly matched, especially after Clinton got damaged in the sex scandal. Gingrich certainly was sharper and had his party in far better control back then than Boehner now. And Boehner has illustrated (as has McConnell) to be horribly inept at LEADING his party. Meanwhile Obama feels he was cheated out of the compromises he would have wanted to do, so he is even more eager now to use the bully pulpit to mock and ridicule the Repblicans. I do see this as similar to the 2012 Presidential election between totally outclassed Romney being mangled by an Obama who wasn't even trying very hard..
BUT it will be interesting to see. I don't see the GOP having any real strategy of what they could achieve in real conservative agenda. Obama will never gut ACA ie Obamacare. That is a nonstarter. Why would any GOP member entertain the thought its worth their political capital to waste on that futile fight that Obama always wins with the veto. How about immigration? The GOP 'autopsy' of the 2012 election loss had only one significant political recommendation - immigration reform. It HAS to be done or the Republicans alienate the Hispanic vote for a GENERATION (meaning they cannot win the Presidential election at least that long). What moronic thinking is there to not pursue a comprehensive immigration reform now, with Obama who has amde it patently clear he wants this. What political calculation is there to so dramatically shoot the GOP in the head by putting immigration as the top obstruction strategy now? NOW? Heading into the 2016 election cycle. They are mad! And the homeland department funding? For what? To block Obama on immigration? This is a double-loss. They simultaneously abandon the Republican's single strongest argument - we are the party of SECURITY and for what - to upset the Hispanic community - by what - a policy that CANNOT be passed because Obama would of course veto it and the DEMs wont' even let it pass to a vote in the Senate. So this is only a bad-worse-worst situation. What madman from the Democratic party hypnotized the GOP leaders to pursue this self-destructive agenda - to start their brief legislative control of both houses... This is total disfunction. I can't wait to see the 2016 campaign ads by the DEMs using the sound bites they now are collecting fron the GOP leadership... (and toss in the few haha 'sensible' voices - since when was Lindsay Graham the sensible wing of the party? Or his bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran-buddy McCain grumpy bitter old man)
If the GOP had a brilliant strategist, gosh, I don't remember one, Bob Dole maybe? then yeah, they could make a fight of it, to play clever conservative ideas and package them with somethings that Obama wants. But this silly fight? Come on. Obamacare has 11 million Americans already enrolled in it, who love it overwhelmingly. Let it go, that was a fight they lost in 2008. Immigration? Oh my gosh that is stupid. Even the GOP itself saw it was their biggest blunder in 2012. And now they only continue on that self-destructive path. And Homeland Security? Bush's legacy landmark achievement and the national response to 9/11. How can the GOP let Obama and the DEM's steal this issue to become the defenders of homeland security while the GOP sets it into jeopardy? Lunatic 'strategy' for the 'we want to show we can govern sensibly' party. This could be a big opportunity, Obama wants to make deals. Hillary will never be such a push-over. But the GOP still wants to relitigate the lost Obamacare war of 2008... idiots.
SCOTUS will be an issue no doubt and some of its rulings will serve one side, others the other side whether in actual effect and whether as rallying call for the next election. Gay rights however I think that time is past and it will be a non-issue by 2016.
(your third comment) yeah there is that hope by the liberals to get Elizabeth Warren to run (how did she suddenly become the new Kennedy haha, that was fast) but she's been very clear she won't. I think she's sharp enough to see Hillary will cruise to an easy win and her (Warren) best political path is to align early as Hillary's supporter - as she has - to ensure she gets a plumb job in Hillary's first administration. Secretary of Treasury sounds like a job made for her and Warren as first-ever woman in that post would also suit her future plans haha to one day become the second US female president (Warren, after Hillary)
The DEM's Tea Party was seen in living memory, it was Walter Mondale and the over-reach of the liberal wing. The biggest loss in I guess US history where he only won his home state and DC. So while yes, there is a liberal wing of the party, they are not anywhere near self-destructive and extreme in how the Tea Party has corrupted the GOP since 2010. There is yes, potential for that split to develop - BUT - Obama was the less liberal in domestic policy compared to Hillary in 2008 (Obamacare is the Republican private industry insurance version aka Romneycare, compared to Hillarycare which was the full national single-payer system that would cover everybody). But Hillary is the hawk in foreign policy. So for most liberals on domestic policy issues, gay rights, women's rights, labor union rights, etc, Hillary is closer to the center of the party (Bill is more centrist than Hillary) but on foreign policy she is the nearest thing to a Margaret Thatcher that the West has seen. Putin isn't worried about Obama but he is worried about Hillary. Hillary's first test as President will be Putin's last nasty trick in 2016 wherever he decides to send Russian troops next, at that time.
Oh, I got side-tracked. So yeah.. there is plenty of grumbings in the liberal wing of the Democratic party about Obama-the-appeaser who only serves conservative needs not liberal needs. They also obviously don't like that he didn't close Guantanamo and keeps using drone strikes and the NSA spying scandals etc. But, in Hillary, the liberal wing sees a fighter not appeaser, so they know she will not try to run for compromise first with the Republicans. And they see a loyal friend to many liberal causes, labor unions, gay rights, women's rights, minimum wage etc. But they will be conserned about her war-hawk nature. I think, however that ISIS and Putin will serve Hillary very well, especially as almost nobody in the GOP nomination is even nominally qualified in foreign policy (by nominal, in the way that Sarah Palin could see Russia from her porch haha). So as we can pretty well be sure that the ISIS war won't be over by November 2016 and Putin will still be on his rampage, then the contrast of Hillary the former Secretary of State vs some Republican local Governor or junior Senator, will be very strong indeed. And many on the Democratic liberal wing will feel its still the better balance, they will appreciate her strength in 2016 for the foreign policy election that it is shaping up to becoming.
So how's that for a few comments. What do you think?
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | February 25, 2015 at 07:57 PM
Oh, PS
The PPP polling. I do subscribe to the theory that all polls of the primaries before the debate season starts are almost meaningless, being name recognition polls more than real preference. But once the debates start and voters really start to get involved and compare the real candidates against each other, rather than who was recently in the news, then the polls will start to have meaning. And then its far more relevant to look at the states about to vote, not the national horse-race polls. I expect we'll see huge volatility in the polls now for many months to come, similar to how in 2012 we had a differnet montly polls-leader for something like 5 months in a row
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | February 25, 2015 at 08:01 PM
I'll have more to say later, but here are a few thoughts.
First, you also predicted that the Democrats would retain the Senate and pick up governorships in 2014. How did that work out? Sure, there are more low-information voters in a presidential election year, but I don't think women's enthusiasm for electing a woman as president will be as strong as those of African Americans for voting for Obama (African Americans voted at a higher rate than whites in 2012, which is almost unheard of, and they are much more solidly Democrat as a group than women). The under-30s who put Obama over the top in 2008 will be 8 years older and much less enthusiastic or idealistic about politics in 2016. And don't look now, but the GOP managed to do much better than expected among Latinos in 2014. They won't win the Latino vote in 2016, but they might not lose it in as big a number as Democrats need.
Second, I wouldn't discount the PPP poll. There's a Quinnipiac poll with similar findings, for the Iowa caucus, and a Texas Tribune poll showing Walker strong right now.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2158
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/23/uttt-poll-texas-walker-ties-cruz-clinton-soaring/
Yes, it's February 2015, not February 2016, but I don't think the criticism that early polls just capture name recognition really apply this time around. Who doesn't know who Jeb Bush is? And why is Ben Carson garnering 18%? Even I had to look up who he was (though I recalled it as soon as I did), and I follow these kinds of things. The point is that the poll results are more than just name recognition right now. Everyone knows who Jeb Bush is, but he isn't very popular. Maybe it's his last name, and the fact that he has to go around saying that he isn't his unpopular brother, or his father (who has enjoyed a resurgence in popularity recently). Or maybe it's just that "Bush vs. Clinton Part II" doesn't really excite anyone. The point is that the polls reflect more than name recognition right now.
With Walker, the left has themselves to blame for making him popular. They fought 2 high profile races to try to bring him down, as well as other races to bring down supporters in the state senate (and even politicized a state supreme court race), and fell flat on their faces every time. The fact that they are going after him trying to ask "gotcha" questions just reinforces the idea that he is someone to take seriously. He has a mixed record as governor that they could be focusing on (he's reduced taxes, made the state modestly more competitive, but job growth has lagged and his latest budget uses some trickery to "balance"), but they are focusing on petty things. They had the "perfect" candidate against him last year (a successful centrist businesswoman with no political baggage), lots of outside money, and still couldn't beat him. He has political accomplishments that have stuck. No one, not even his opponent for governor, has suggested repealing the union reform law that he pushed through in 2011. So he's been able to stay largely on message and the attacks on him have appeared shrill so far.
Third, where do you get that 11 million Americans "love Obamacare overwhelmingly"? The fact that they saw surges in sign-ups at year-end, again in February, and have extended the deadline to sign up until April makes it seem to me that people are signing up to avoid the penalties (sorry, the "tax" according to John Roberts), not because they are enthusiastic about it. It really hasn't stemmed the increase in healthcare costs in the U.S. (the insurers say as much in their amicus curiae imploring the Court not to overturn the subsidies), and most of the decrease in the rate of uninsured has been the result of the expansion of Medicaid (which basically is a sub-par welfare program for the poor that few doctors actually accept since it pays so little).
Obamacare still polls badly and has lower approval ratings than the president himself. It's a mess of a law. It will never be fully repealed (people like the part that says that insurers have to cover pre-existing conditions, etc. because the costs are hidden), but that doesn't mean it won't be gutted at some point, perhaps even by Democrats. For the most part the exchanges simply replaced the existing independent insurance market. Democrats don't like Obamacare because it isn't single payer or even a public option, and Republicans don't like it for myriad reasons. Parts of it, like the medical devices tax, are deeply unpopular on both sides of the aisle. And the "bronze" plans that are the lynchpin of the exchanges provide awful coverage. Single individuals pay $4,000 a year before subsidies for plans that have $6,000 annual deductibles and extremely narrow networks. Families pay about twice that much. If this had been passed by a Republican president and Congress (since Democrats like to point out that the GOP proposed something similar back in 1993), the media would likely be focusing on "horror stories" of middle class families earning $60,000 per year who still can't afford to go to the doctor because they haven't met the $12,000 deductible. So people have "coverage" but their situation really hasn't improved. There have also been boondoggles like the push toward electronic records that have increased costs for medical providers while achieving dubious benefits. Meanwhile the 85% of us who have employer-provided coverage (and who were and are mostly happy with what we have) haven't been affected by most provisions yet (many provisions don't kick in until 2017), so for us we really haven't seen much difference yet. It doesn't say much about the confidence that those who passed the bill had when they front-loaded all the popular provisions ("no more pre-existing conditions!") and back-loaded the less popular provisions (taxes on benefits that are "too generous"). There are TONS of fixes that just about anyone would make if not for the political impossibility of doing so right now. But if it is going to take one-party rule to make it happen, realistically the earliest is 2019 if a Republican wins next year and 2021 if a Democrat wins next year. The Senate will likely flip back to the Democrats after the 2016 election, but the House won't. The Senate may well flip back to the GOP after the 2018 election. 2020 is anyone's guess and a political eternity (and a presidential election year by which time we are almost certain to have had a recession of some kind if it hasn't happened by next year).
The problem is that people like you believe what you hear on the national media or read in the New York Times. Those stopped being independent sources of news a long time ago. Every media outlet is partisan, one way or the other, but it seems to me that the press has been far more protective of Obama than they ever were of Bill Clinton. That hasn't helped Obama. He lives in a bubble and is out of touch in a way that Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush were not, and it perpetuates the myth that Obama has had it worse than any other president. He really hasn't. Sure, some opposition is because of race, but I really don't think a President Kerry would have had a much easier time. Maybe Hillary would have had she won in 2008, but 2016 would be a different story. The biggest difference between the 1990s and now is that the Ford-era Independent Counsel act has thankfully lapsed, and so unlike during the Clinton administration we haven't had a Ken Starr out there with an untouchable budget and subpoena power investigating every potential scandal. Congress can hold hearings, but they don't have the time or the power that the independent counsels did. Without it, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, and Valerie Plame, among others, are minor road bumps rather than major scandals.
I disagree strongly that Obama has been limited by trying to compromise. He's been limited because he is just not a good negotiator. He wanted to be the next FDR or LBJ, but unlike those presidents, he didn't have executive or leadership experience. Roosevelt was governor of New York. Johnson was Senate Majority Leader for 6 years, Minority leader for 2 years, and Minority whip for 2 years before that. Both knew how to navigate controversial legislation through a skeptical legislature. Similarly, Bill Clinton was a centrist Democrat and a deal-maker who was able to get significant legislation passed without having a majority in either house of Congress because he knew how to triangulate (a skill he undoubtedly honed as governor of a Republican-leaning state). By contrast, Obama had a hard enough time passing legislation when he had an 80+ seat majority in the House (with a very effective Nancy Pelosi as Speaker), and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Unlike those three very effective Democratic presidents, Obama never ran anything before running for president. He was a back bencher in the Illinois Senate. He wasn't in the U.S. Senate long enough to reach any kind of leadership position. The only thing he ran before being elected to the toughest executive position in the world was his own campaign, in which he had the final say and could overrule anyone. It's no surprise he lacks the ability to broker compromises. He never needed to. Sure Boehner has an unruly caucus, but Obama really didn't make much of an effort either to reach out, or to triangulate to box the opposition into a position where they had to make a deal (except for the 2011 budget deal, which I discuss next). After the GOP took control of the House in 2010, Harry Reid basically circled the wagons and shut off all debate in the Senate, using every parliamentary trick in the rulebook, including invoking the "nuclear option" that even Dick Cheney backed away from. His only significant legislative achievement after 2010 was the 2011 budget deal, in which he held the upper hand, since doing nothing would have resulted in massive unpopular tax increases that even he opposed, but for which he could pass the buck by publicly supporting 98% of the "irresponsible Bush tax cuts."
The point is that Obama never really could corral even his own party, since negotiating isn't really in his nature. Obamacare passed by a single vote in the Senate, and might never have become law if not for all the stars perfectly aligning in 2009 (Rod Blagojevich's appointment of Roland Burris to the Senate, Arlen Specter changing parties, Al Franken winning a disputed election, Massachusetts changing the law to allow the governor to appoint a temporary replacement to the Senate after Ted Kennedy died). Even without a single GOP senate vote (and at one point he did have Olympia Snowe's support, which might have dragged along Susan Collins), he shouldn't have struggled as much to get a bill past the Senate. The fact that he didn't even try to get an immigration bill through Congress in 2010 (after promising Latino leaders in the House that he would) shows me that either he didn't care, since the status quo benefits him politically, or that he lacked confidence he could gather the votes even in a friendly Congress.
Anyway, Obama is not on the ballot in 2016. I'll focus more on Hillary in my next post.
Posted by: Catriona | February 26, 2015 at 02:23 AM
PS, Sarah Palin never said she could see Russia from her backyard. That was "Tina" Fey on Saturday Night Live. Proving once again that if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the truth.
Posted by: Catriona | February 26, 2015 at 05:54 AM
Hi Catriona
haha, today reading Carl Rove's piece in Wall Street Journal (from yesterday) I see he touches on the delegate math. He says its possible (roughly similar to my 5 candidate scenario, he has 2 strong rivals and some weaker) but he finds it still unlikely. So, now the delegate math has been introduced and probably others will ponder about that and we'll get more contributions...
Tomi Ahonen :-)
Posted by: Tomi T Ahonen | February 27, 2015 at 04:19 AM
It is highly unlikely there will be a brokered convention. The GOP has fewer unelected "superdelegates" than the Democrats, but the electoral rules are meant to have the race decided in the latter half of March. They want to respect the 4 traditional "early" races while discouraging the ridiculous race that the Democrats had in 2008 to push the primaries ever earlier.
I'm also not convinced that the Democrats are doing Hillary any favors with a coronation. She still has not yet won a race in her life that was seriously contested. November 2016 is not the time for the Democrats to realize that Hillary isn't up to snuff. I don't think there is as much desire to elect Hillary just because she is a woman. The abortion issue could still drive some voters to her, but the idea of a woman president just isn't as novel in 2016 as the idea of an African American as president was in 2008. Unlike African Americans, women don't live in segregated neighborhoods, and aren't generally worse off socio-economically. The GOP definitely has a gender gap problem, but nothing like the gap they have with racial minorities.
CPAC is going on right now. Carly Fiorina seems to be making a push to be recognized. I wonder if a Walker/Fiorina ticket would be a good combination for the GOP. Fiorina was no Steve Jobs or even Tim Cook, but she was definitely no Stephen Elop, either. And she was better than some of the CEOs who followed her (I'm looking at you, Leo Apotheker).
Posted by: Catriona | February 27, 2015 at 05:13 AM
Tomi, you are completely delusional if you think Americans love Obamacare. If you are making $60,000 a year, are you happy about paying $3000 a year for insurance that doesn't kick in until you've spent $12,000? It's polling worse than Obama. Obama was right when he ridiculed Hillary for claiming that an individual mandate was a good approach. Unfortunately, he adopted it as soon as she got elected.
And the self-destructive Occupy wing is indeed in charge of the Democrats. Chicago's credit rating just got downgraded. And the voters denied dyed-in-the-wool progressive Rahm Emanuel (who just signed a bill to raise the minimum wage $4.75 above the state minimum and $5.75 above the national) a majority, forcing him into a runoff with someone to his left who wants to spend the city's way to priority and increase pensions, seemingly oblivious to the fact that a city of 2.5 million and falling already has $20 billion in unfunded pension liabilities.
Posted by: Catriona | February 28, 2015 at 03:17 AM