Nobody faintly interested in politics can ignore the
campaigns. But nobody really knows much,
leaving it to a largely inexperienced group of television pundits to state
their opinions as fact. And everybody
relies too heavily on polls.
So, for what it’s worth, here are my updated thoughts on the
campaigns as they stand in mid-February.
Donald Trump. His
popularity is based on his style and his clear opposition to business as usual. Amazingly, there is some substance to his
ideas, occasionally on foreign policy, but his racism and free-swinging attacks
turn many voters off. He probably can
get no more than 40 percent of all Republicans.
Not enough to win.
Ted Cruz. His main appeal is that he is not Trump and is a
religious person. But he is not a
compromiser and has no friends in the Senate because of his destructive
approach. He does not offer enough of a
viable alternative to win.
John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio. One of these should emerge as the mainstream
GOP alternative to Trump and, unlike Cruz, at least two of them really would be
different. Kasich, the Ohio governor, is
a conservative by conviction and can still be pragmatic. Appeals to Democrats. Bush, the former Florida governor, seems to
be an opportunistic conservative who does not project leadership
qualities. Rubio is a conservative
trying to pass himself off as mainstream.
He also obviously lacks experience.
Could come down to Trump v. Kasich or Bush. Trump loses because he cannot win the general
election.
Hillary Clinton. The
most experienced person in the field, but acts as if she is privileged and is
thus somewhat exempt from full-scale honesty.
Not really a modern liberal, so probably could work with GOP. Friendly to big money interests. Probably would turn out to produce results
like Obama and her husband.
Bernie Sanders. The
most authentic candidate and holds the most progressive views. He favors big change, which others say he
could not produce or pay for. If he won,
his victory alone could provide at least some momentum toward changes he
proposes. Appeals to young. If enough Democrats share his views on big
money, he could win, but that’s not likely.
Somebody else. If
Sanders defeats Clinton or comes close in races she should win, the Democrats
could turn to an alternative. Vice
President Biden, Secretary of State Kerry, California Gov. Brown come to
mind. All old men.
Likely to come down to Clinton, a pragmatic but not popular
choice.
The main event: Clinton facing Bush or Kasich. The country saved.
U.S. House of Representatives. Likely to remain Republican thanks to
gerrymandered districts dating from 2010 state elections. But margin likely to be reduced if the
Democratic presidential candidate does well or wins. There are enough close seats to allow the
Democrats to close the gap. Maine’s
second district is a good example.
U.S. Senate. Could
swing to Democrats with more GOP-held seats up for grabs. This would be influenced by presidential race
and lack of the ability to gerrymander.
Democrats need a strong coordinated national campaign, which would mean
sticking with Sanders if he were nominee.
U.S. Supreme Court. Beyond
Scalia, almost certainly, there will be appointments to be made in the next
four years. Much depends on the
presidential and Senate elections to determine the Court’s approach to the
domination of campaign finance by big money, attempts to suppress voting,
health care and immigration. This was
the hidden element of the 2016 elections, but now could be a focal point.
All national elections are important. This year’s could mark
a transition, but to what? Pragmatism or
deeper partisan war?
As for Maine, Republican Gov. LePage helps Democrats gain control of the Senate
and hold the House, because he worries people, who will want to limit his
power.
Your thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment