The Problem Facing the Republicans This August Debate

(Update: big hello to everyone visiting via Mike's Blog Round Up at www.crooksandliars.com and I hope everything is to your satisfaction.  Please take a moment to look at some of the other musings and rants I've got on the site, and if anyone asks tell them I'm trying to read both Go Set A Watchman and Between the World and Meat the same time for possible reviewing in the future)

(Update to the update: I Still Heart Pluto)

There's a few problems the Republicans are facing this 2016 Presidential cycle, above all their lack of a true Reagan-esque figure to shill for their increasingly unloved political agenda.

They're already facing the uphill battle over demographics, but everyone - including Mr. Strawman over there - knows that.

The Republicans have to cope with the current Electoral map that favors the Democrats in more states with more electors: all the 2016 Democratic nominee has to do is win the same states Obama did, which is looking more likely by the day.  (and the only ones to blame are the Republicans themselves, responsible for such polarization in the first place).

There is, however, on top of all this a big problem the Republican Party cannot avoid.

They have too many candidates for President running in this primary.

We're technically up to fifteen (15), unless there's been any more announcements just now, and the common consensus is that we might have sixteen (16) names seventeen (17!) names for the Republicans to consider once the actual horse-race is underway come January 2016.

These aren't just people floating their trial balloons.  They have filed, they are lining up SuperPACs and fund-raisers, and they're fighting for position for the upcoming cable news debates.

By comparison, the Democrats are around five (5) names filing for contention with a potential sixth, and while one of them - hi, Hillary! - is a dominant name there's at least one serious competitor - hi, Bernie! - and one possible competitor who can rally by primary season in O'Malley to make something of a horse-race for the Dems.  Throw in the likelihood of Biden and there's at least a reason to tune in and see who gaffes the most.

In theory, it's good to have choices.  Especially in politics where diversity of views on different issues need to get aired out to the voters.  That's why for the Democrats it's going to be a good thing to have front-runner Hillary Clinton face off against an obvious alternative in Sanders and a potential backup option in O'Malley (or Biden).

In practice, having too many choices clutters the field, creates too much chaos for people to make decisions.  It may also create other problems, but for now let's consider the chaos.

For Republicans, last cycle 2012 they did have thirteen (13) names on the ballot, but it got pretty clear by the first month that it was all down to Mitt Romney and the Not-Mitt Candidate of the Week.  Given the front-runner status of Mitt, the Not-Mitt option became less of an issue: all it did was prolong the primary season as the eventual Not-Mitt candidate in Santorum refused to drop out.

This 2016 cycle, the Republicans are lacking a clear front-runner.  It's currently just Trump and Jeb Bush in double-digits... and neither of them are over 20 percent (by comparison, Hillary is polling at 51 percent over Sanders' 17 percent, it's shrunk but it's still a major lead). Part of it has to do with there being too many choices too early.  While the remaining thirteen Republicans are polling at 9 percent or lower, they're still taking up space and they're essentially taking away potential voters from everybody else.  Let's round every non-Trump/Bush candidate to 5 percent... multiply that by 13 names and that's still 65 percent of the field which is kinda how the numbers play out today.  Neither Trump nor Jeb have momentum right now to claim a clear front-runner position that could stabilize the race.

Few other campaign cycles were this cluttered to my memory.  Going back to 1980 when I was old enough to pay attention, the Democrats had just three (incumbent Jimmy Carter vs. spoiler Ted Kennedy - who apparently did no-one any favors - and I think Gov. Brown from California) and the Republicans had ten (eventual winner Reagan vs. Bush the Elder and Anderson as the main opponents), but even then the minor-league guys dropped out pretty quick by the first month of actual primaries, and you had an idea early on who was winning (at least it was down to two-three names).  Most other cluttered races - even 2012's - had that scenario play out to where it went from thirteen names to nine to six to three within a couple of months.  This time...

While Jeb is pretty much the Given (Establishment candidate with the deep-pockets) and Trump the Upstart (oy vey), neither of them at the moment can even claim front-runner.  Both are seriously vulnerable even within the context of the primaries.  Past them are the solid names with both credentials and credit within the media (Rubio, Rand, Walker, Huckabee) still not breaking into double-digits, and then the "why are they running" crowd (Cruz, Carson, Jindal, Christie, Santorum) who can still turn into wild cards, followed by the "why are they losing" crowd (the "serious" candidates like Kasich and Graham who can't stir up interest above the statistical error range).  Thing is, by this point of a campaign - the early debates - at least SOMEBODY would buy a clue and drop out for the good of the party (and before they get caught in a worthless scandal).  The other thing is though, the ones most likely to drop out - hi, Carly! - barely have a percentage to their names already, meaning any boost to gain that support would be below negligible.  It would take a Rand or Rubio dropping out to cause a significant shift in the polling... and even then, it'd be about six or seven percent, still nothing to crow about...

The next problem related to all this: all the rules have changed.  For one, the horse-race mindset of the media covering elections are pushing the election cycle further and further ahead of the actual calendar.  The traditional point for candidates to really drop out - the early balloting that solidifies who's actually winning - is so far off most candidates can delude themselves into hanging on for months, keeping the field cluttered.  There is no reason for Rand or Rubio or any of the less-than-a-percent crowd to drop out.

The second thing changing everything was Citizens United and other rulings making it easier for the rich to spend unlimited amounts of cash on campaigns.  In this environment, even a third-tier candidate like Jindal and Santorum can find a deep-pocket "sugar daddy" to create a SuperPAC to cover most of the costs of campaigning.  Just enough to keep themselves in the race all the way to the summer convention.  Granted, the Democrats can work the same way, but for Republicans facing a crowded field the problem doesn't multiply it grows exponentially.  How Santorum did in 2012 - lasting all the way up to the end, and even securing enough Primary ballots in the late rounds with Mitt a lock - is the harbinger of this trend.

So why is a cluttered field of candidates a serious problem for Republicans?

Because it increases the likelihood of a candidate over-reaching to pander to the base, and getting caught on live camera or microphone saying or doing something that can taint the entire field.

Call it the Todd Akin Moment.  As a candidate for Senate, Akin made a massive faux pas commenting on rape, using ill-formed arguments and lack of knowing human biology that essentially killed his campaign. It reflected so poorly on Republicans - who were making insane claims about rape in other elections that cycle - in general that it hampered their attempt in 2012 to gain control of the Senate.

The Republicans run a huge risk of a similar Moment happening on the debate stage for August, or elsewhere as long as there's a massive field of candidates vying for podium space.  Only this time it will involve their Presidential race, tainting most of the likely candidates they're hoping to sell to the general voters (the ones less impressed with base-pandering and more impressed with, oh, basic logic and competency).

Trump is already a huge warning sign.  Just to get attention at his announcement last month, Trump went overboard insulting Mexicans in such a way that the much-needed Latino voter bloc is already refusing to look at the Republicans at all.  What do you think the August debate - on Fox Not-News no less, home of the Far Right voter base eager to get pandered to - could look like?

What can well happen at the first August debate - even capped off to just the top ten polling names - would be a free-for-all pander-fest.  You'll have attempts by the low-tier candidates with nothing to lose - Ted Cruz comes to mind right away - offering up bizarre statements and outright fear-mongering to get the audience's attention.  Think Trump's insults towards Mexicans are offensive?  Just wait until Cruz or Huckabee or maybe Jindal (if he makes the cut) say something about Planned Parenthood, or Gay Marriage, or bombing Iran.  Easy winning topics for the base and likely to push them into double-digit territory with Jeb and Trump, very bad ways to insult the overall nation with more than a year to go before the conventions even happen.

And the thing is, the risks for the Republican candidates to do this are low.  They have thirteen other candidates to beat.  The urge to stay in the race long-term - the urge to prove themselves "winners" in a purity contest well up into July 2016 - guarantees that.  Even Jeb is going to feel the pressure to pander early and often: maybe not on immigration, but certainly on something Far Right Religious.  The benefits are high: expanded interest by their base audience, and an increased likelihood of winning enough GOP Primaries to become a player at the convention in case there is no clear winner (which is likely if five to seven candidates keep going all the way and Jeb fails to impress the hardcore base (which is very likely especially if immigration remains a sticking point, it's an issue Jeb honestly cannot let slide without destroying his own biography)).

And despite the short-term memory for most voters, you can be certain the Democrats are TiVo-ing / DVR-ing the entire debate for gaffe-worthy material to broadcast later on by their unregulated SuperPACs well into October 2016.  Whereas given the smaller field of candidates for Democrats, they will run fewer risks of an onstage gaffe, as the risks of offending are higher and the odds of improving their numbers - Hillary is just too far ahead to run the risk - are lower.  The best the Democrats can hope for is Hillary imploding on herself in a way that doesn't hamper Sanders or O'Malley (or Biden) in securing a solid nomination before May, or else Hillary securing the nomination in a way that appeases the Far Left base while playing well to the general public.

The Republicans are facing a hard August, one of their own making.  As the major practitioners and supporters of the "unlimited money" campaigning that now clogs their system, this has to hurt in a real-ironic (not Alanis-ironic) way (although it's probably a bummer anyway).  Because they set up the debate rules tied in so heavily to polling, they are going to see more candidates pander early - like Trump did - and in the worst, potentially offensive ways.  That they're relying on their pander-propaganda network to do all this - hi, Fox Not-News! - makes it harder for the GOP to attempt any U-turns and re-adjust the rules to enforce some comity.

I won't necessarily crow about all of this.  I genuinely believe the nation benefits when there's sane choices to make come election time.  I worry that this current fiasco - that He (sorry Carly, you're just not gonna be in this race) Who Panders Most Leads Best is going to stay all the way into 2016 - is going to leave us with a Republican Party (tearfully behind the curtains) offering up a candidate in Ted Cruz who will cheerfully nuke the political landscape or else a Jeb Bush (whom I still view as an evil choice) trapped with a horrific and insulting party platform he cannot set aside.

While I hope for a decent Democratic candidate - yes, Hillary is evil but she is competent which is more than I can say for most of the GOP offerings - I do worry that a bad Republican candidate could win a contested and close contest - hi, 2000 Debacle! - that would put the worst panderer into our most important office.

It's gonna be a long year for the whole nation.  Please stay sane, and please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO NOT VOTE REPUBLICAN.

Iran And Peace In the Same Sentence, the Same Deal

Mentioned back in April that Iran agreed to a deal to reduce their efforts and step away from a nuclear weapons program.  Today, the final steps of that deal were put in place between Iran, the United States, and other major global players.  To the Atlantic on the deal:

One key feature of the deal is that it exchanges sanctions relief for Iran with limits to its fuel stockpile and nuclear-production capacities. Iran will have to remove two-thirds of its installed centrifuges and store them under international supervision. It will also have to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent for 15 years.

Should Iran fail to hold up its end of the bargain, the agreement arranges for a panel involving all seven countries that participated in the nuclear talks to vote on whether to put sanctions on Iran back in place. A simple majority can approve them, which means that if Iran, China, and Russia vote against the so-called “snapback” of sanctions, they can be overruled.

Meanwhile, the agreement affirms that "under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons." To make sure Iran complies, it also guarantees that the International Atomic Energy Agency will monitor Iran’s nuclear facilities for the next 25 years...

...As for the United Nations arms embargo against Iran, it will be lifted after five years and restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missiles will be eased after eight years. According to Colum Lynch and Dan de Luce at Foreign Policy, the American concession on this issue, which may alienate some of the president’s allies in Congress, is ultimately what led to Iran to give in on the limits to its nuclear program outlined in the accord. The issue of the arms embargo was initially left out of the April framework agreement.

Beinart's article about why the Republicans are having, will have a major hissy fit over this:

When critics focus incessantly on the gap between the present deal and a perfect one, what they’re really doing is blaming Obama for the fact that the United States is not omnipotent. This isn’t surprising given that American omnipotence is the guiding assumption behind contemporary Republican foreign policy. Ask any GOP presidential candidate except Rand Paul what they propose doing about any global hotspot and their answer is the same: be tougher. America must take a harder line against Iran’s nuclear program, against ISIS, against Bashar al-Assad, against Russian intervention in Ukraine and against Chinese ambitions in the South China Sea...

...Obama has certainly made mistakes in the Middle East. But behind his drive for an Iranian nuclear deal is the effort to make American foreign policy “solvent” again by bringing America’s ends into alignment with its means. That means recognizing that the United States cannot bludgeon Iran into total submission, either economically or militarily. The U.S. tried that in Iraq.

It is precisely this recognition that makes the Iran deal so infuriating to Obama’s critics. It codifies the limits of American power. And recognizing the limits of American power also means recognizing the limits of American exceptionalism. It means recognizing that no matter how deeply Americans believe in their country’s unique virtue, the United States is subject to the same restraints that have governed great powers in the past. For the Republican right, that’s a deeply unwelcome realization. For many other Americans, it’s a relief. It’s a sign that, finally, the Bush era in American foreign policy is over.

What is happening here is this: Obama's efforts at diplomacy throughout his two terms demonstrates that the neocon hardline "war is the answer" mindset is false.  Where the Republicans would insist on bombs and occupation at all times, Obama looks for alternatives, usually through talks and deals.  Granted, Obama still deploys troops and has increasingly relied on drone warfare across the Middle East, but he's trying to avoid the large-scale alienation that hampered U.S. interests overseas and weakened our position with allied nations.

Look at how Jeb Bush - whose father of all people was an expert diplomat himself, and who has to be cringing at his son's folly - was complaining about Obama's "poor" efforts at foreign policy, that "we" as a nation were "not leading".  His criticisms ring hollow and false now that Obama and his State Department led our allies into making a solid workable deal with an Iran once treated as hostile by Jeb's brother Dubya.  Jeb seems to ignore a key bit about foreign policy: if you go into a meeting and come out of it with more allies and trade partners than you did going in, it's a victory.  And more often than not, Obama's been winning those meetings.

To the hard-liners here in the U.S., the talk will likely be about how this deal hurts Israel (and Saudi Arabia), or appeases the theocratic Ayatollahs ruling Iran.  What they're ignoring is that if (yes, we do need that caveat) the deal pans out, Israel (and Saudi Arabia) will actually be SAFER with a nuke-free Iran in the region.  And this isn't a soft deal either: if Iran gets caught pulling anything sneaky - and the oversight/transparency efforts appear to be well-prepped - the whole deal's off, which is a strong incentive for Iran - which needs the sanctions lifted for economic stability - not to cheat.

And as for the Ayatollahs and their hard-liners in the Iranian government, the easing of sanctions will make the world a friendlier, more attractive visage to the Iranian people (who are more savvy about the world and eager for normalcy than the neocons would admit).

I still stand with the protesters from years ago who stood for a democratic change in their leadership.  I cheer on the fact that a later election cycle proved the Iranian people wanted that change despite the fear of their overlords, and elected people who became part of this peace process with the world at large.  I still hope that with this move, the hard-liners of their government can realize they don't need to rule by fear or suppress their people.

This is a great day for America, and a large step towards global peace.  Well, okay, there's still the rest of the Middle East to clean up, ISIL to stomp, a Syrian civil war to end, a Libyan government to stabilize, a...

Also, it's I Heart Pluto Day.  Let Pluto be the Planet it was BORN to be.

Predicting Character: The Wreckage of Scott Walker

It's a bit anti-climatic after all of the other names having jumped in, but Scott Walker made it official today.  To David Graham at The Atlantic, who's been tracking all of this on his Cheat Sheet:

In some ways, he seems like the perfect candidate for the 2016 field. He’s made his name battling unions and enacting conservative policies in Wisconsin, making him a darling of movement conservatives and Tea Partiers alike. His promise is that he can take that brand of effective nuts-and-bolts leadership and labor-busting national. (There’s a reason the AFL-CIO greeted his entry with disgust.) As a scrappy politician who clawed his way up through the ranks despite not having a college degree, he doesn’t come across as a moderate dynasty candidate like Jeb Bush. And as an executive who won three elections in four years, thanks to an unsuccessful recall attempt, he can sidestep the charges of youthful inexperience that have dogged Rubio. He is also reported to be the top choice—or a top choice—of the Koch brothers and their network of donors, who plan to spend nearly $1 billion this cycle.

Graham's take on Walker's chances are solid but unknown: he's considered a known quantity in Wisconsin but there's no idea how he'll play on a national stage.

I would beg to differ.

Walker can play well to the Republican voting base at the least.  And he's already proven he can convince enough Wisconsin voters to vote him back into the Governor's office, despite years of opponents howling and years of his own record of dubious actions.

Regarding Walker's biography, the key points are his college years and his governing years.  He attended Marquette and was politically active, running for student offices... but his major campaign for student president was messy and potentially law-breaking (although nothing came of it), and Walker soon left college without graduating (his critics say he was kicked out, but his story of leaving due to poor grades and better job opportunities does pan out).

As for his governing style, as both County Manager for Milwaukee County and as Governor of Wisconsin, he has developed a reputation for Uncompromising tactics.  He's also one for dismantling existing programs and trying to farm them out to private firms with little success or savings, a common trend among modern Republicans.

His not being known on the national stage as well as the other front runners (cough Jeb! and Trump cough) can be something of a boon: he can avoid his state record often enough to convince enough low-information voters he's more middle-of-the-road than other Republican candidates.  At least until it's too late.

With regards to how I'd state his biography clip here, trying to follow the rules Professor Barber set for determining Presidential Character:

Scott Walker - Governor, Wisconsin
Positives: Won election in a solidly Blue state multiple times - including a recall effort - demonstrating survival skill to a GOP voting base that would respect it.  Can govern.  Does not have the "crazy" credentials of other Republican front-runners, meaning he can pose as "moderate" when need be (like the general election).  Compared to the other big-name governors on the list - Jindal, Christie - Walker is a success story (although not by much).  Far Right Republicans will love his Union-busting record.  Among the major names, Walker is the one most likely to overcome front-runner Jeb Bush: Walker can well present a similar resume as Jeb's and NOT suffer the questioning - "Dynasticism?  Will he rule much like his failed brother W.?" - Jeb will likely get as a Bush.
Negatives: Does not have as strong a record running Wisconsin as he would present to the nation: there are already signs his economic and education policies are hurting.  Has little international skill sets, putting him at a disadvantage on foreign policy issues.  His biggest enemy - the Unions he's busted - may be weakened but they can still organize, and against him they will go all out.  He's still a key figure in an ongoing John Doe investigation that has already indicted various figures in Walker's administration/circle of allies, and has a troubling history of violating campaign laws (going all the way back to his college days).  Considering how hands-on Walker is with his campaigns, this is a serious weakness.
Chances: Walker has remarkably good odds (for the moment).  He has both solid ties to deep-pocket financiers like the Kochs, as well as a knack for appealing to average voters in his state (which might translate well at the national level).  As noted in his Positives, Walker has a remarkable advantage over Jeb Bush: he's not the brother of George W. Bush nor the son of Bush the Elder, which means he's not going to spend a lot of time defending his family's failures in the White House.  Of the top three "serious" candidates for the GOP - himself, Jeb, Rubio - Walker has the fewest hurdles to clear.  It's just that Walker has that John Doe investigation into campaign violations that's still on hold but due to get back to work, and with his history of self-managing his campaigns Walker can well face criminal charges any day now.
Character Chart: I will keep re-stating the obvious.  The modern Republican platforms of God, Guns, and Tax Cuts are so reactionary and self-serving that pretty much every possible candidate is going to trend Active-Negative.  Whatever Congenial trait Walker deploys is purely a feint: Like Huckabee, Walker's Aw-Shucks persona is just for show.  Walker's track record - pushing a defined political agenda without compromise, sticking to partisan talking points, expressing disdain for political offices he openly covets - does not point to someone with a Positive world-view of effective government.

To be honest, Walker scares me as much as any of the other 12 14 16 candidates on the Republican primary ticket.  What really worries me is that he's been able to sell himself as a winner and as a "reasonable" political figure at the state level when his office record shows nothing of the kind.  He can just as easily campaign like that to the average American voters just like he did in Wisconsin...

Quick News: I Heart Pluto

We're getting close to the New Horizons fly-by of Pluto.  This is a big moment For Science!

We're already getting pictures in.

Pluto Loves Us And Wants Us to be Happy

So of course, the meme of the week is

I HEART PLUTO

Pluto is a planet.  That's what I learned in high school and dammit I'm not about to unlearn it now.

Also, we're hoping aliens.  We were promised aliens in all the video games.

If So-And-So Gets Nominated For Party X in 2016, We're All Doomed (In Varying Degrees)

So I saw this via Crooks and Liars on the Mike's Blog Round Up today: what If Bernie Sanders Is Nominated?

The site itself is Will Hillary Win (By a Landslide), so there's an expectation already for bias, but blogger Robert Cuthbert makes a plausible take that it would be good for the Far Left but bad for the Party.

Sanders as the Democratic nominee, as unlikely as it is, should be considered. The avowed democratic socialist will face the perceptions of American voters. According to a recent Gallup poll, voters are very unlikely to cast a ballot for a “socialist.” Voters were asked if they would vote for a woman, candidates of various religions and ethnicity, and so on. “Republicans and Democrats differ most in their willingness to vote for a socialist candidate,” wrote Gallup’s Justin McCarthy, “by 33 percentage points, but ‘socialist’ ranks last for both parties.” Voting for women ranked in the 90th percentile for both parties.

So there's evidence Hillary would succeed with general voters where Sanders wouldn't.  Sanders himself is not deterred by the name-calling over "Socialist" but there's still enough voters who are wary of that insult after all.

But it begs the question: just how well will each of the possible candidates for 2016 play out?

Going by David Graham's updated cheat sheet of victims uh candidates for 2016, let's take a look:

Democrats

Jim Webb: former Senator, Virginia
Role as: The Conservative Democrat Whom Nobody Knew Was Running
If Webb Wins The Nomination: It would be a huge surprise. Either Hillary or Sanders were taken out by outside issues - scandal or illness - because those two are so far in the lead there's pretty much nothing else to the Dem horse race.  And only if the other minor names - O'Malley in particular - somehow flamed out.
In truth, outside of a decent-looking resume - Vietnam War, served as a bipartisan figure in the Reagan administration, centrist Senator from a major swing state - Webb has nothing else for him.  He's not a solid campaigner, his message doesn't stand out, and his only positive unique stand is having been opposed to the Iraqi invasion/occupation, which is less valued in 2016 now that Obama's been struggling with the Middle East demonstrating how much a mess that all remains.  If Webb does get the nom, there's something seriously bad happening in the Real World and it's going to be beyond this mere election.
Webb Can Win It All If: It won't get that far.

Hillary Clinton: She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed, former Senator and Sec of State, Clintonland uh New York
Role as: The Juggernaut.  I'd say Queen of Westeros, but the fan base would be split between her being Cersei or Khaleesi.
If Clinton Wins the Nomination: There would be no surprise, for one.  The mainstream media will bemoan the inevitability of Hillary's win, the Far Right will gear up all the Conspiracy stuff from the Nineties as well as the getting-stale BENGHAZI fauxrage, and it will all come down to who gets the GOP nom before determining how severe a beating Hillary will deliver on them.  She's leading strong over Jeb as a possible opponent and is in double digits over most of the GOP field (Trump gets the worst beating by over 20 points).  Granted, the nature of the long campaign means those leads diminish quick after the conventions, but as long as Hillary stays above 5 points on the GOP candidate well into October 2016 - and it's likely, because the GOP candidate is going to be bloody from the primary in-fighting - it's pretty much done.
Hillary Can Win It All If: She avoids self-destruction while campaigning hard enough to motivate the Democratic base.  She's so far ahead of every Republican name than only Jeb or Walker should give her concern.  To be fair, Hillary *is* her own worst enemy.

Lincoln Chafee: former Governor, Rhode Island
Role as: Who?
If Chafee Wins the Nomination: Impossible to conceive.  He's so unpopular in his own home state he doesn't have a base of support to build upon.  Webb has a better chance, hell I do and I'm not even in the party.  He seemed to jump in as someone who can attack Hillary from the Left, but Bernie's already doing a better job of that.
Chafee Can Win It All If: It won't happen.

Martin O'Malley: former Governor, Maryland
Role as: the Technocrat
If O'Malley Wins the Nomination: Much like Webb, it'd be due to something bad happening to Hillary or Sanders.  Unlike Webb, O'Malley has better national recognition and a slightly better persona to bring to the Democratic primary voters.  He was primed to be the main opponent to Hillary, but Sanders beat him to the punch and to the momentum.  He's basically the Second Choice kind of candidate: the guy you'd go with if your Primary Choice - Hillary or Bernie - are off the ballot and you're not a fan of the other.
O'Malley Can Win It All If: Hillary falters, and O'Malley faces off against the second-third-crazy tier Republicans like Perry, Cruz, Trump, or Carson.  Against more serious reputable Republicans like Jeb, Walker or Rubio, O'Malley could have a hard fight.

Bernie Sanders: Senator, Vermont
Role as: The Left Wingnut
If Sanders Wins the Nomination: It would be due to impressing enough primary voters his anti-Wall Street, pro-Left agenda can win and that he - not Hillary - can best lead America on those issues.  However: The media would freak.  Concern trolls will come out of the woodwork complaining that the Democratic primary voters just killed the Party by going with an avowed Socialist.  Fox Not News would bring back calls to unleash Chiang Kai-Shek.
Problem is, and the Truth is: a far-leaning Liberal candidate hasn't done well for Democrats in ages, not since Johnson (who wasn't that liberal).  Guys like McGovern and Mondale were unpalatable to the general voters.  Much in the way an extremist Republican candidate like Cruz or Trump would be toxic, so too would be an extremist Democrat like Sanders.  Despite how I agree with a lot of the positions Sanders supports, I posit the absolutist position Sanders argues from hurts the possibility of winning over moderate or undecided voters.  Example: Sanders' position on single-payer universal health care just isn't going to appeal to general voters who are only now getting used to the more market-proven Obamacare.
Bernie Can Win It All If: He not only stirs up enough passions of the Far Left to beat Hillary, he stirs up enough passion for social and economic justice among Moderates to make "Socialist" a respectable label.  In this scenario he can well endure any slings and arrows shot at him by whichever Republican runs against him.

Joe Biden: Vice-President, Delaware
Role as: The Village Elder, or Consigliere.
If Biden Wins the Nomination: he's got to get into the race first.
Biden's advantage would be as the natural successor to the Obama administration, and as someone who has paid his dues within the party well enough to be a respected Elder.  Problem is, as a campaigner he can be sloppy - he's been the source of a series of well-meaning gaffes - and he just doesn't project well (I've noted him back in 2008 as being as flat as drywall, which isn't a true reflection of him but it's just how he's viewed down here in the front lines).
Biden Can Win It All If: He can successfully carry the banner as Obama's Successor.  Despite all the hate-on from the GOP, Obama remains popular with the nation.  Whichever Democrat gets Obama's approval automatically gets a huge boost.

Republicans

Chris Christie: Governor, New Jersey
Role as: The Bully
If Christie Wins the Nomination: It would mean he beat the crap out of everybody and took their lunch money.
Seriously, Christie is so behind in the polls and so dogged by scandals - not just BridgeGate but now serious charges about Sandy relief and illicit ties to Wall Street - that even being on the list for Vice-President is unlikely.  There's better odds Christie will be on trial by November 2015 than on the ballot in November 2016.
Christie Can Win It All If: He avoids jail time.

Bobby Jindal: Governor, Louisiana
Role as: Renly (that is, a Pretender to the Iron Throne who crowned himself first before even proving he could win it all.  Whether or not a shadow-demon spawned of a Red Witch attacks him is moot).
If Jindal Wins the Nomination: It would mean he somehow got above 1 percent of the polls to get invited to a debate and swept the competition.
The field has gotten so crowded - and so overwhelmed by Far Right panderers - that Jindal has nothing unique to offer.  His performance as Governor has suffered, his fealty to Grover Norquist so blatant that general voters will believe Jindal will answer first to the Club for Greed instead of the nation's majority, and his fundamentalist religious stance co-opted by more serious fear-mongers than himself.  If he does get the nomination, it will be due to a massive flame-out by Jeb... and Rubio... and Walker... and Trump... and Huckabee... and Cruz... and...
Jindal Can Win It All If: It's next to impossible.  He's lost a lot of support even among Conservatives.  If he wins the nomination he still has to go up against a Democrat who - odds are - will be more popular and more reasonable to a moderate-based general election cycle.

Donald Trump: Narcissist, New York Trump Tower
Role as: Monster From the Id, The Rabble-Rouser
If Trump Wins the Nomination: The rioting in the streets will be from the GOP party leadership, because they'll be terrified that their Party has finally collapsed on itself like a black hole.
The scary thing isn't that Trump is currently leading in the polls, it's that the GOP primary voters want him leading in the polls.  Trump is appealing to the Far Right's most base, most fear-and-anger driven emotions of the moment, offering little in specifics yet offering bluster and insults - which the Far Right seems to lap up like sweet nectar - to those who question him.  He *is* the Id more than the Ego in that Trump aims for gratification and promotion of self-worth over rationalization and self-awareness.
While the campaign watchers all seem to be saying "oh, Trump can't possibly keep this up," they're overlooking the fact that Trump has nothing to lose.  Trump can justify the losses he's currently getting with his business deals drying up as short-term: he can easily ride the outrage into more business deals - at the least a big book deal - after the campaign ends.  Anyone who thinks that Trump can falter in the upcoming debates fail to realize that Trump won't care how he does: he'll claim success no matter what just by being there, and his crazed self-confidence will convince himself no matter what (look at how he handles himself in interviews: every question he blusters and bluffs and assumes and never apologizes or backs down).  Any setback will be blamed on outside forces: any rebuke more of a reason to prove his opponents wrong.  All he has to do is keep this up until the actual primaries and win enough of them to justify his actions and assure his future wealth.
Meanwhile, in the real world, a Trump primary victory would truly be an end of the Republican Party: it would ruin the leadership's control and disappoint the back-room financial backers hoping for a more serious candidate.  The problem past the nomination is how Trump will market himself to general voters, who trend more moderate, more pro-Immigrant, and less impressed with Trump or his self-obsession.  Even if Trump tries to flip-flop and sell himself as "hip" and "successful", trust me as a self-proclaimed Moderate there is no freaking way he could con himself outside of the Far Right crowd who are more willing to buy his gaudy fakery.
If there's any good news about the current polling, it's that for all his bluster Trump has ONLY gotten about 15 percent of the GOP base.  Blame it on the crowded field: there's 12 to 14 names out there and only a limited percentage to reach.  If Trump were truly winning over the base he'd be in the mid-30s much in the way Hillary is in the mid-50s among Democrats in a 5-person race.  Once the field narrows to 5-6 choices for Republicans, we'll get a better idea of how the GOP voters lean.
Trump Can Win It All If: He can hoodwink and con enough Americans into thinking he's a sane and rational choice.  Which is impossible.  There's honestly, seriously, completely, not enough suckers born every minute to cover those odds.  Even P.T. Barnum couldn't sucker enough people.  Trump's already burned so many bridges over his anti-Mexican rant that even if he wins the GOP nom, everyone outside of the GOP will automatically back whichever Democrat candidate opposes him.  It's that simple.

Jeb Bush: former Governor, Florida
Role as: Nepotistic Son/Brother
If Jeb Wins the Nomination: There would be little surprise.  Jeb is coming in as the deep-pocket Establishment candidate.  As much as Hillary is the expected banner-carrier for the Dems, Jeb is the expected banner-carrier for the GOP come 2016.
The media may decry the "predictability" of the nomination, and there will be open cries of dynasticism considering Jeb is the son of a former President and the brother of another President.  But the pro-Jeb media types - which number a lot of MSM talking heads and the Fox Not-News crowd - will proclaim a nomination victory as vindication for Dubya, and that voters are ready to let yet another Bush lead us into a THIRD invasion of Iraq.
If Jeb does win it will be over the objections of the Far Right factions who would fear Jeb as "soft" on immigration, even though on all other points - being Pro-Fetus, Pro-Tax Cut, Pro-Business Dereg, Pro-War, Anti-Education, Anti-Worker, Anti-Wages - Jeb is as Right as the whole GOP field.
Jeb Can Win It All If: He can outlast the crazy faction of the GOP primary, and if he can convince enough general voters he's not going to be the disaster his brother Dubya was.  Which is highly unlikely.

Rick Perry: former Governor, Texas
Role as: The Dumb One
If Perry Wins the Nomination: It will be due to him actually studying well before the debates and remembering his talking points.
To be fair to Perry, he has served a long time as governor of a major state, but on the national stage he's less impressive than he thinks he is.  In a crowded primary field, Perry has to go above and beyond to impress enough voters to even qualify for the debate appearances at this point, and so getting past that threshold requires a series of miracles that even Frank Capra couldn't sell in a movie plot.
Perry Can Win It All If: Texas doesn't secede from the Union first the entire GOP field falls into a mud pit and never returns.

Lindsey Graham: Senator, South Carolina
Role as: The War Drummer
If Graham Wins the Nomination: It will be due to a major international crisis that Graham not only predicted but also offered sage counsel on its resolution.  Foreign policy credentials are the only thing he brings to the table, and on any other points he's part of the same-old same-old with the rest of the GOP field.  I'm not even certain he's making the cut for the first debate.
Graham Can Win It All If: ...Nah.

George Pataki: former Governor, New York
Role as: Who?
If Pataki Wins the Nomination: I don't even see him making the first cut for the debate.
Among the GOP potentials, he's the most likely to be Moderate when push comes to shove... but in a primary system now dominated by Far Right extremists worshiping the likes of Trump, Pataki's better off sitting it out and leaving his name up for the Vice-President short-list.
Pataki Can Win It All If: It's just not gonna happen.

Rick Santorum: former Senator, Pennsylvania
Role as: The Out-Of-Date Joke
If Santorum Wins the Nomination: Oddly enough, this is possible.  Santorum did well in 2012 versus Romney.  Problem is this year, Santorum's role as the Religious Scold is shared between himself and Huckabee and Jindal.  And Huckabee polls better.  Santorum might make in-roads arguing against the victories of Gay Marriage in the Courts, but Jindal's already playing there with his "let's get rid of the Courts altogether."  Santorum is just.. old news.  He could win but only if the Establishment candidates - Jeb, Walker, maybe Rubio - fall, if Trump implodes, and if Cruz and Huckabee and Jindal disappear into the Bermuda Triangle.
Santorum Can Win It All If: He can sue successfully to have his name cleaned from the Google Search engine.

Mike Huckabee: former Governor, Arkansas
Role as: Religious Scold, Bible-Thumper, The Hypocrite
If Huckabee Wins the Nomination: It could happen if Huckabee can project his affable demeanor to convince the GOP voting base he's as Congenial as Reagan.  Huckabee does bring something - personal charm - that few of the candidates Republican or Democrat bring to 2016.  And there's enough of the primary voters who will accept him as a genuine religious figure to "bring Jesus back to America."  Whatever outrage the anti-tax crowd have for him has to have dissipated by now, as it's pretty much a given that the entire Republican platform will be tax-cuts galore no matter what.  But for this to happen, Huckabee has to outlast Jeb and Walker and has to outfox (literally and figuratively) Trump.
If Huckabee DOES win the nomination, he then has to face the challenges of the general election, where his "Put God Everywhere In Government" stance can well scare away more open-minded moderates.  The GOP leadership would worry about the potential that Huckabee's harsh Culture War position would affect all down-ticket campaigns, as it would likely inspire more Todd Akin-like outbursts about rape and women's roles in society.
Huckabee Can Win It All If: He can convince the GOP he's the Next Reagan, and he can convince the general election voters he'll respect the No Religious Test requirement of the Constitution.  In other words, Not A Chance.

Ben Carson: Surgeon, maybe Michigan or Maryland (I'm still not sure which state)
Role as; The Outsider, the Anti-Politico
If Carson Wins the Nomination: It will be due to the Culture Warrior candidates like Cruz and Huckabee falling apart, and due to the Establishment candidates like Jeb and Walker quitting and heading into the private sector for cushy CEO positions.
Carson's main reason being here was because Fox Not-News championed him as a viable Obamacare critic.  Outside of that issue, Carson is no different than the rest of the field.  His ethnicity is another reason as he helps sell the GOP as "diverse" - even as most African-American voters have no real reason to vote for Carson or trust a Republican Party that actively pursues minority voter suppression (among other sins).  His only other value to the Far Right is that he is the purest Outsider candidate the GOP can offer.  To a voting base that despises "professional" politicians - even their own - Carson appeals to their "let someone else untainted by politics" mind-set.
Thing is, if Carson does win, that anti-Government appeal won't go any farther than the GOP voters.  Democrats will have no reason to switch to Carson, and Moderates believe it or not vote for Competency in the candidates not Ideology.  I'm pretty sure the GOP leadership would dread a Carson candidacy as much as a Trump one.
Carson Can Win It All If: ...Seriously?

Carly Fiorina: CEO, California
Role as: The Token Candidate
If Fiorina Wins the Nomination: Incredibly unlikely to happen.  Her ONLY appeal would be as the "woman Republican" candidate in opposition to Hillary.  She has no other experience to speak of outside of her CEO duties, something Jeb and Trump cover already, and even there her record is shaky (if not an outright failure).  I don't even think she's making the cut for the first debate this August.
Fiorina Can Win It All If: Hewlett-Packard admits "it wasn't her fault" and she wows the debate c... oh, right.  Not Gonna Happen.

Marco Rubio: Senator, Florida
Role as: The Other Guy
If Rubio Wins the Nomination: it means Jeb and Walker failed, and maybe also Huckabee, leaving Rubio as the only reasonable choice left for the primary voters.
And by reasonable I mean "someone who can actually talk in a reasonable manner with normal people."  In a field of extremists and what-the-hell candidates, Rubio is almost refreshing as a run-of-the-mill politician who can be just as hypocritical and self-serving as the rest of them. At least he's aware of how he appears on-stage and willing to tone it down and think long-term.
Like I described O'Malley earlier, Rubio's success this primary season has been getting the nod as The Second Choice: as the candidate most likely to gain support when a voter's Primary Choice fails and drops out.  Whereas O'Malley hasn't turned it into a solid percentage of support, Rubio's been able to keep his head above water (the debate cut line, actually) and is the one most likely to avoid making the gaffes and miscues that Trump, Jeb and Huckabee are making as head-liners.  Winning the nomination means he garnered enough primary support from voters switching from drop-outs to him, and survived any collapse by the other top-tier names.
Problem is, he's not in a position to get any of the cast-off Second Choice votes if the likes of Trump or Cruz drop out.  THOSE voters are clearly anti-immigrant and anti-sane, and will avoid Rubio out of spite at the least. Rubio has to hope that their alternatives - Carson or possibly Huckabee - have already dropped out first.
I'd say that Rubio is soundly positioned to be a Veep candidate if anyone other than Jeb wins - the Vice President cannot come from the same state as the President candidate - except for the fact that Romney's background check on him in 2012 (and failure to tab him then) raises a few red flags about Rubio's personal finances...
Rubio Can Win It All If: Jeb and Walker falter, Trump and Cruz implode, he's running against O'Malley as the Democratic candidate, and nobody looks too hard at his credit card bills.

Rand Paul: Senator, Kentucky
Role as: That Cousin Who Shows Up at Family Reunions Talking Crazy As Usual
If Paul Wins the Nomination: it means he was able to win over a sizable Isolationist and Libertarian-leaning primary voting base.  Which means he won't win the nomination because there's really NOT MANY OF THOSE LEFT IN THE GOP.
Granted, Paul comes into this primary with a respectable support system thanks to his father's trolling efforts in 2008 and 2012.  Just remember, it wasn't enough for Ron Paul those election cycles either.
Paul Can Win It All If: The Gold Standard comes back.  Which isn't going to happen.

Ted Cruz: Senator, Texas
Role as: That Other Cousin Who Shows Up at Family Reunions Even Crazier Than That Guy, I Mean At Least With Rand Paul You Can Enjoy a Blunt, But THIS Guy, Whoa, Uh-Uh, No Way
If Cruz Wins the Nomination: it means Cruz was able to reach into Trump's chest, tear out his still-beating heart, consume it on live television during the August debate, and claim in all seriousness that he has eaten Trump's soul and can wield all his powers.
Before Trump went all-out on his anti-Mexican, anti-sanity ranting the past two weeks, Cruz had a stranglehold on the Crazy Wingnut base.  With Trump stealing his thunder, Cruz has basically gotten into a holding position, waiting to see if Trump remains serious about sticking to a long campaign or if Trump implodes as the experts think he will.  So far, Cruz has been complimenting Trump's attacks with faith but noticeable praise, trying to avoid the backlash Trump has received from the general public while retaining those political views in order to sweep in later and secure those Far Right voters cheering Trump on.
Cruz remains the Wild Card of this race, even with Trump pre-empting his message.  Cruz is showing every sign of wanting to stick it out, and is crazy and self-confident enough to think he can pull it off.  If he wins, it will be due to out-debating - he DOES have the skill for that - everyone else and reclaiming the wingnut mojo back from Trump.
Cruz Can Win It All If: Impossible. Cruz might impress the GOP voting base but there's no way he can beat the Democratic candidate, even if it's Bernie Sanders and Cruz is screaming "SOCIALISM" at the top of his lungs.

Scott Walker: Governor, Wisconsin
Role as: The Union Buster
If Walker Wins the Nomination: it means he was able to brush off Jeb and outlast the Culture Warrior types like Huckabee, Cruz and Trump.
Walker still hasn't formally announced but is expected to, and is expected to make the cut for the debate.  He will come into the primary with sizable advantages: he won election and re-election under tough conditions, even surviving a recall effort.  He has a public record of being pro-business and anti-tax, and especially anti-union, something the GOP base will admire.  He has the same deep-pocket backers as Jeb and the other major names, so if any of them falter Walker can easily pick up their support.  His best advantage is his name: he's not a Bush.  Jeb has to fight against the public image of a political dynasty, as well as the sins of his brother's horrific administration and miscues.  He's not openly a Culture Warrior but he's solidly anti-abortion and can easily campaign as anti-immigrant if need be during the Primaries.  Where Jeb is the Most Likely to Win, Walker is the Most Likely to Upset Jeb.  If Walker has any flaws, it's that like Christie he's under criminal investigation, and much like Jindal his actual record as Governor (faltering and under-performing) is lacking.
If Walker does win, the Republicans may find a way of campaigning in the general election as a "Change" candidate free of the Bush links, especially against Hillary who would then have to carry the "Dynastic" charges.  However, as noted earlier and what should be mentioned about all the Republican candidates, the GOP are running on a platform that skews further Right than ever before.
Walker Can Win It All If: He avoids the John Doe investigation, and Wisconsin stays afloat economically long enough for him to convince general voters he didn't destroy the state as Governor.

There's also John Kasich, but he's still a maybe in my books, as well as one of those under-one-percent guy who's not going to make the debates.  I mean, why bother.

So, what do you think, sirs?

South Carolina Takes It Down

This is just one step.  And it's very symbolic: it doesn't change the fact that racism remains a troubling wound to the nation's soul.

But this step is a big one.

Getting South Carolina - the hotbed of secession since the days of John C. Calhoun, the source of discord and segregation for more than a century - to lower the Confederate Battle Flag is a BFD.  The symbol of hating a federal government that insists on equality before the law and between all citizens, the symbol of a Lost Cause far too many want to keep fighting, a flag that flew in public as a sign that the hatred supporting that heritage was tolerated at the least...  That symbol no longer flies.  Racism no longer carries an official seal of approval.

As for that flagpole, I recommend flying the Moultrie Flag as it has historic value.

Also, props to Bree Newsome.  And to some awesome fanart:

Now for the hard part: convincing more people to stop being haters over race, stopping the fear-mongering out there causing unjust division among Americans.

Killing the Gerrymander: Battles Won, But the War Goes On

The Florida Supreme Court just now issued a strong rebuke to the gerrymandered district maps the Republican-controlled state legislature drew up for this decade.  Via the Tampa Bay Times:

In the historic 5-2 ruling, the court not only ruled the maps were the product of an unconstitutional political gerrymandering, it signaled its deep distrust of lawmakers and provided detailed instructions on how to repair the flawed map in time for the 2016 election.

Writing for the majority, Justice Barbara Pariente said the court found that the initial maps drawn by state lawmakers "were tainted by unconstitutional intent to favor the Republican Party and incumbents."

"This is a complete victory for the people of Florida who passed the Fair District amendment and sought fair representation where the Legislature didn't pick their voters," said David King, lead attorney for the League of Women Voters and the coalition of voter groups that brought the challenge.

Woot.

Even though the Court is ordering just 8 of the 27 districts redrawn, the connectivity of district borders make it clear all the neighboring districts - up to 14 - will change, so that almost the entire map should get redrawn in order to fill a core requirement of districts being evenly populated.

The key one - and the one pretty much every court has railed against - will be that hideous 5th District that stretches through TEN counties and three (maybe four) separate major cities.  It's so infamous it's been one of the Top 10 Gerrymander examples for the Washington Post this decade:

Take Florida’s infamous 5th Congressional District, for example. It runs from near Jacksonville in the north, hooks east for a few miles, then west for a few miles, narrows to the width of an interstate highway for a while, cuts west all the way over to Gainesville, then swivels back east and southeast, finally arriving at Orlando, a distance of about 140 miles, sweeping in black neighborhoods along the way in order to create a “minority-majority” district.

It’s been  described by a federal judge as “visually not compact,” “bizarrely shaped” and defying “traditional political boundaries” with what critics called “finger like extensions,” “narrow and bizarrely shaped tentacles” and “hook-like shapes.” It resembles no known species or geometric form. It does look an awful lot like the Potomac River from the air, however.

The 5th was recently ranked by the Post’s Christopher Ingraham as one of “America’s most gerrymandered” congressional districts.

You know me.  I've railed against the bad maps for years now.  I've been hoping this day would come: a major decision where it's spelled out in as harsh a wording as possible how wrong the state legislature and Florida Republicans were.  Back to the Times (different report):

In siding with a coalition of Democrat-backed voter groups, the court majority concluded that lawmakers violated the Fair District amendments to the Florida Constitution. The amendments were approved in 2010 by more than 63 percent of voters — over the objections of the Republican-controlled Legislature — to prohibit lawmakers from intentionally drawing districts that favor incumbents or political parties.

The court gave the Legislature 100 days to meet in special session to complete a new map, and ordered the trial court to issue an order that opens the door for it to review the final product...

That last bit means there is a level of accountability here: having the trial court get final say is telling the Republican legislators they can't just shove out a map with nonexistent tweaks and call it a day.  But I have no illusions here: the Republicans in charge of the map-making are going to do everything they can to get away with as much game-rigging as possible.

Here's the thing. Statistically, the Republicans have fewer registered voters than Democrats: 4.1 million Republican to 4.5 million Democrat.  Throw in the 2.2 million NPA (No-Party-Affiliate plus third parties) and we ought to be seeing representation closer to 50-50 which party has advantage among the Congressional districts (and maybe, one or two NPA-heavy).  Instead, there's a 17-to-10 GOP-over-Dem count, about 62 percent control of districts: far too many of them crafted to be "safe" - that is, not worth the effort to challenge - for the Party-favored incumbents (which also applies to the incumbents of the party being blocked: those incumbents also prefer the safety of a gerrymander in order to keep their cushy six-figure job plus benefits, even as the needs of their party faithful suffer).

If this Supreme Court ruling can shake up the Congressional - and state legislature districts, I'm worried we're not hearing anything about those rigged distasters - districts we may well get a fair and just election working.  We ought to see districts genuinely reflecting the overall voter identity of Florida.  We may well see - still hoping for it - one or more Open districts where neither major party dominates.  Forcing both parties to moderate their positions and run candidates not for purity of ideology - what "safe" districts invoke to the detriment of all - but to honestly serve the demands and interests of those districts.

We may yet get improved voter turnout.  When people have real challenges, real reasons to make a choice between potential candidates, when they are openly courted for the correct reasons rather than the dogma a safe incumbent embraces - something we see with Presidential election cycles because things ARE at stake in such a choice - the voters will see they have a reason to vote, and would do so in great numbers.  Which is what we're supposed to get in a democratic republic form of government.

Time - as always - to kill these gerrymanders.

We'll see what the map looks like in 100 days.

If Trump Wins The Nomination, How Many Hispanics Flee The GOP?

I mentioned before about ethnicity as voting blocs in the United States.

As far as how Americans voted in 2012:

• The numbers came down to about 93 to 98 percent Blacks voting Democratic, which is as close to absolutely everyone in that bloc.  Given how the Republican Party is staging itself for 2016 - with voter suppression efforts and platform issues that would anger Blacks - there's little chance of the GOP breaking the Democratic monopoly on that bloc.
• There were about 70 percent give or take for Asians voting Democratic.  Of the ethnic groups, there's a shot Republicans could win more Asian voters their way, except for the fact Asians have a pro-immigrant stance that might be repelled by the harsh anti-immigrant stance the GOP is sticking with (again).  There are individual nationalities - Indian, Japanese, Chinese - that may as a group lean one party or another, but for now there's no singular issue that can divide this bloc.
• Hispanics/Latinos were around 70 to 71 percent voting Democratic.  Culturally, this is an ethnic group that's incredibly diverse yet sharing common enough points to be a unified bloc.  A lot of that is due to La Raza, a sense of community/family that highlights a religious-conservative bent... and yet a social-liberal one at the same time.

Hispanic voters are a key ingredient on the national level for Republicans.  Without enough of them to merge with the GOP voter base of Whites, Republicans can't see any good shot at the White House.  Dubya secured 44 percent of the Latino vote in 2004, which helped him win.  Romney secured 27 percent of the Latino vote and lost the popular vote - and a solid number of Hispanic-heavy states - by five points.

So here we are facing 2016.  Here's a Republican Party whose anti-immigration stance has already alienated a sizable portion of Hispanic voters to begin with.  And here comes Donald Trump insulting the sh-t out of Mexicans and talking about building a super-wall along the border (and forcing Mexico to pay for it).

Even with Trump boasting he'll win the Latino vote - which is so ludicrous I'm seeing conservative blogs choke on it - how can any sane, self-respecting Hispanic-American accept this guy?  There's a reason a lot of businesses are dumping Trump, and it all has to do with the fact he's insulting a growing and powerful voting (and economic) bloc.

If Trump really does secure the Republican nomination - and despite all hand-waving to the contrary by the experts, Trump is polling too well with an overly angry and fear-induced wingnut base that can dominate the primaries - just how bad is it gonna be for Republicans in dire need of Latino voters?

You can immediately take that 27 percent that voted for Mitt in 2012 and reduce it to ONE percent within a five percent range for statistical error.  There were 11.2 million Latinos who voted in 2012: give standard population growth or voter interest to go up a little, let's say to 13 million.  Let's be generous and give Trump five percent Hispanic voters (as per the statistical range).  Multiply 13,000,000 to .05 and you get 650,000 voters, less than a million.  At least Mitt got 3-plus million.

Because despite Trump's assertion, he has so openly and brazenly insulted Latinos - Mexicans in particular, but essentially every nationality from south of the border has to be offended - that there is no way he can win over that voting bloc.  Whatever promises Trump thinks he could make by the general election cycle - he seems to think he can offer a no-details "jobs" package - he's already violated the KEY rule - hi, Machiavelli! - of winning the people's favor: he's made himself hated.  Once they hate you, they will not and cannot forgive you.

The perfect example is the African-American voting bloc.  Once the Republicans openly pursued their Southern Strategy, they began losing Black voters in droves.  Going after social aid programs since the 1980s, massive voter suppression efforts geared at denying them access to the ballot since the 1990s, and then obstructing Obama since 2009: There's barely - maybe 5 percent - any Black Republicans left.  All because the GOP made themselves hated by Blacks as an entire group.

Going full anti-Immigrant - and doing so in an insulting manner - is going to drive away Latinos (and a good number of Asians who are affected on the same issue) to the same level as Black voters.  And there are not enough White voters - even though the overall population has Whites in a majority, we do not vote as solid a bloc as the other ethnics - who will cross over due to Trump's fear-mongering.  He's already got the base he's pandering to: there is no way he is winning over pro-Immigration Whites or even White voters with a lick of common sense and common decency.

This is the reason the RNC chair has reportedly called Trump this afternoon to tell him to "tone it down" (likely in not as polite a tone either).  The Republicans know they've lost the Black vote and have few illusions about breaking that bloc.  There are utterly terrified - they have to be - if the Latino bloc rejects the GOP en masse at the same percentages that Blacks have.  It would not only kill them in the Presidential election, it could well crush them in a dangerous Senate electoral cycle - there are 24 GOP-held seats up for grabs and a lot of them in Purple-Blue states - and even disrupt the gerrymandered control of the House and legislatures of certain Hispanic-heavy states.

Even if Trump loses the primaries or drops out, this is a bridge getting burned for the Republican Party: mostly because the Latinos have to be looking at the polling numbers go UP for Trump among the GOP primary likely voters, and they have to realize that this is what the Republican Party looks for in their leadership and messaging.

There are no sure things, obviously.  The history and trends, however, all point to the GOP alienating another voter bloc.  We need to see if there are updates to voter registration numbers: I'd love to see how many Hispanics are switching to No-Party or Democratic affiliation this past week alone...

Update: in Slate, Jamelle Bouie notes the Republican Party has a serious image problem with Latino voters already.

...In the past six years, GOP states have targeted Latinos for greater scrutiny, GOP officials have called for “self-deportation” of undocumented immigrants, and GOP presidential candidates have stood with nakedly anti-immigrant politicians. And although there are smart, reasoned arguments against comprehensive immigration reform and other permissive immigration policies, the rhetoric that counts—that resonates with actual Republican voters—comes from figures such as Iowa Rep. Steve King, who once warned that a path to citizenship would “destroy our republic.”

At this point, Latinos don’t just oppose particular candidates, such as Mitt Romney. They disdain the Republican label itself. According to a 2014 survey from the Pew Research Center, just 10 percent of Latinos say that the Republican Party “has concern” for their communities, compared with 50 percent who say as much about the Democratic Party. Few agree with Republicans on policy—especially immigration—and just 27 percent of Latinos identify with the Republican Party, compared with 63 percent who identify with Democrats. Not surprisingly, this has carried over to the 2016 GOP presidential field. As of October, notes Latino Decisions, just 32 percent of Latino voters would consider a vote for Jeb Bush, just 35 percent would consider a vote for Sen. Marco Rubio, and just 24 percent would consider a vote for Sen. Ted Cruz (Note: Jeb, Rubio and Cruz are the candidates who are tied to the Hispanic community by marriage or blood, and thus viewed as the more 'palatable' to appeal to that bloc).

So the Republicans are in trouble already.  Trump is clearly not helping matters by stirring up the Far Right voting base - which ought to be the real concern here more than having an egomaniacal bankrupt con artist garner a primary lead - to expose just how fearful and hateful that primary voting base can get.  Right now, 63 percent Latinos identify as Democrat.  Just think how many will identify as Democrat if Trump wins the nomination on his platform of insult and debasement.

Honest Bumper Stickers 2016 Part IV: The Trumpening

As things stand at the moment, here's the fourth official round-up of bumper stickers I'd dream up for the 2016 Presidential candidates.

With The Trumpster the dominant candidate - and by God it is scary to see how Trump is dominating the GOP primary polls- of the hour - with his ongoing rage fest towards Mexicans, Chinese, Hillary, women, poor people, sane people, and anyone not named Donald Trump - I feel it is best to start off with a series of Trump-related bumper stickers to share and enjoy.  Okay, maybe not "enjoy"...

...and Harold Stassen is DEAD...

There.  Now let's see if I can get some more bumper stickers made for the other candidates.

And because I can't resist:

Just remember, kids, the August first round debate is just a month away.

Just What The Hell Is Trump Doing Going Full Hater?

So, regarding Donald Trump's quadrupling-down on his racist comments about Mexicans crossing the border - not only harping on them being "rapists" and "drug dealers" and now accusing them of bringing diseases into the US - about three thoughts come to mind:

1. What the hell?
2. How the hell?
3. No, seriously, Why the hell?

In my experience, in the decades I've followed politics since the 1980s onward, I've seen the "dog-whistling" that the GOP used in their campaigning to get their Southern Strategy of fear-mongering working.  There's been a bit of subtlety to it - not a lot, but it's there - and it usually masked the race-baiting under other topics such as crime (Willie Horton), welfare reform (Welfare Queens and Young Bucks Buying Lobster), education (Affirmative Action is unfair), tax reform (shift the burden away from income and capital gains taxes of mostly-white CEOs, and onto sales and property taxes that adversely affect mostly-poor minorities), and the utter destruction of the social safety net (well, not that subtle at all).

There'd been a few hard-core haters that made attempts in the last 12 years - Tancredo comes to mind - to run for the Presidency but all of them were alienating and with few followers.  Trump is the first one who's come out swinging hard on an anti-immigrant position who's actually gone up in polls to where he's being viewed as a possible primaries winner.

But why?  The reactions outside of the Republican polling base has been harsh and quick and financially painful for Trump: he's been dumped by various business partners, NBC has kicked him off his shill-show The Apprentice, and various Hispanic businesses and advocacy groups are calling 24/7 for apologies across the board (not just Trump but the GOP leadership).

There's been theories why Trump has gone Full-Hater:

• Trump is actually a Democratic stooge, a stealth agent provocateur trying to sabotage the entire GOP platform.  George Will seems to be an early supporter of this idea.  Never mind the fact that most of his primary opponents are not nuking him from orbit on Trump's gross behavior - Jeb so far has been the harshest critic - and never mind the fact that Trump is selling an existing GOP marketing strategy that has attacked Hispanics as a dangerous Other for years.  Trump is just amping it up to eleven.
• Trump is actually a Republican stalking horse who's taking such a hard-line and radical racist stance in order to make the other GOP candidates - Jeb in particular - more appealing to moderate and centrist voters needed to win a general election.  I'm more of a proponent of this conspiracy theory, although this all relies on Trump flaming out early to leave an "Establishment" candidate like Jeb or Scott Walker standing at the end of the primary race.
• Trump is genuinely running to win the nomination, and realizes that without an actual electoral history he's going to need to win primary voters as quick and as easy and as cheap (despite all his "wealth" Trump will always choose the cheapest path to profit) as possible.  He's going Full-Hater early in order to stake his position before anyone else does: and the polling seems to prove that attack plan is working for him.  And he's been a Hater before - witness his obsession over Birtherism - and never paid a price for it, so why expect a penalty now?  Simplest - the most direct - explanation tends to be the most correct one.

This is essentially the end result of forty-plus years of the Southern Strategy that Republicans used from 1968 onward to bring social conservatives over from a Democratic Party fracturing after LBJ's civil rights reforms.  As Lee Atwater was caught saying in an interview in 1981, you marketed for all the hate that you can wring out of your voting base - hard-line social conservatives who lean towards racism as a unifying cause - to ensure they vote for conservative candidates regardless of the real issues.  You did it by hiding that hate under "code": You can't say "N-word" by the Eighties, but you say it as "forced busing," or "states' rights".  You place it within the fears of having criminals and drug abusers - who all look like minorities in the telling of the tales - roaming the streets.  And that got you a voting bloc of angry, fear-driven White voters not just in the South but the Midwest and Southwest all eagerly voting for an increasingly hard-core conservative Republican agenda.

But now the bill's come due.  There's few other places of shock and fear the social conservatives can push the ever-rightward Republicans.  No amount of "moving the goalposts" of debate can hide the fact the entire GOP platform has gone fully right-wingnut.  We've endured campaign years of wingnuts like Tancredo and Bachmann and Palin and Santorum.  We had a line-up of 2012 that behaved like Upper Class Twits that underwhelmed.  We already have a 2016 lineup of demagogues like Cruz and Jindal, and bullies like Christie and Walker, and nihilists like Rand Paul, and opportunitists like Jeb and Huckabee, all of them pandering to a Far Right voting base worried less about issues and worried more about an apocalypse sold to them on Fox Not-News every hour on the hour.

Trump is not exposing anything new: he's just taken the Republican messaging - Fear The Other - and amped it up as loud and as obnoxious as he can (which is all he does, and isn't very good at it).  That's what the hell is happening here.  This shouldn't be all that surprising.  If Trump hadn't gone this extreme, one of the others - Cruz is the likeliest candidate - surely would have by the end of the upcoming August debate.

This isn't the worrying part.  What's worrying is that Trump is getting supporters out of this BS.

While I Was Away

So, to the seven readers who keep track of this blog, you may have noted I was off on vacation with limited access to updating the site.  For what I've kept up with during my trip to the DC/Baltimore area (hello, Gettysburg National Park!  Remember me?  Yeah, the fat guy in the UF sports cap), this is what I'm noting on my return here:

• Donald Trump doubled down on being a douche.
• Jim Webb announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination and pretty much nobody noticed.
• Chris Christie announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination and pretty much everyone mocked him.
• Greece voted in a referendum to turn down the EU's offer to fix their debt crisis, mostly because the EU's offer was an austerity program that would have made the 2001 Argentinian deal look like the Marshall Plan (if you know your history, you will understand how bad a deal the EU offer was).  This link to Interfluidity's article goes into a long and complex explanation of what led to the vote and why Greece was fighting the bad deal, but it's worth the read:

• It is difficult to overstate how deeply Europe’s leaders betrayed the ideals of European integration in their handing of the Greek crisis... Regulatory mistakes and agency issues within banks encouraged poor credit decisions. Spanish banks lent into overpriced real estate, and German banks lent to a state they knew to be weak. Current account imbalances within the Eurozone — persistent and unlikely to reverse without policy attention — implied as a matter of arithmetic that there would be loan flows on a scale that might encourage a certain indifference to credit quality. These were European problems, not national problems. But they were European problems that festered while the continent’s leaders gloated and took credit for a phantom prosperity. When the levee broke, instead of acknowledging errors and working to address them as a community, Europe’s elites — its politicians and civil servants, its bankers and financiers — deflected the blame in the worst possible way. They turned a systemic problem of financial architecture into a dispute between European nations. They brought back the very ghosts their predecessors spent half a century trying to dispel. Shame...

• Ta-Nehisi Coates is releasing a new book Between the World and Me.  He's already got a rave review from Toni Morrison.  Toni NOBEL LAUREATE Morrison.  Try to imagine the amount of squee-ing Coates must have went through.  Lemme just say if I ever got a review from Neil Gaiman saying "eh, his Hero Cleanup Protocol estory doesn't have that many grammar errors in it, so..." I'd be stuck in a fanboy coma for weeks.
• Oh, and the Women's Soccer Team won the World Cup in Canada. USA USA USA USA USA!

It's the 4th of July! Time to be 4THing!!!

And as I'm still technically on vacation, you get just a link to YouTube.

I was considering linking a trailer for the Captain America Porn Parody, but that would have been rude of me.

Update: I updated my Port-O-San Cleaner at Woodstock article to re-include a YouTube clip.