It Has To Be Done: GOP Debate Drinking Game 2016 Edition

(Update 10/15/2015: there is now an October drinking game in place, please link over to that, danke)

(Update 8/30/2015: Final note to everyone still looking.  I'm posting a September drinking game for the GOP Sept. 16 debate that I just finished and linked here.  I can't hide or shut down this page, which I figure is still gonna get views thanks to the search engine algorithms out there, but hey the September rules are up now please get drunk using that.  And Pinku-Sensei has the drink orders you can use...
I am now convinced this is not a clown-car race, this 2016 campaign is an endurance test for people's livers.  In the interest of fairness I hope to get a Democratic drinking game up before their October debate.  Meanwhile, keep checking the blog for all the other stuff I'm writing.)

(Note: Getting some traffic for this entry, so I see a need to update with fresher drinking rules as the gaffes pile up...  
Update to the Note: if anybody has a suggestion for a drinking rule to this game, by all means add it via Comment below or else tweet me @PaulWartenberg okay?  
Revision to the Update to the Note: I F-CKING LOVE YOU GUYS visiting my place.  
Addendum to the Revision to the Update to the Note: Now it turns out even Lindsey Graham is encouraging the use of drink during debate viewing: "Well, when I’m in the first debate, which is the ‘Happy Hour Debate,’ at five o’clock, start drinking. By nine o’clock, Donald may make sense to you, if you drink enough." - Graham.
Correction of the Addendum to the Revision to the Update to the Note: It's Tuesday evening (8/4/15) and Fox Not-News has announced the final cut!  TWO DAYS, SHEEPLE!  More below, including changes to the lineup and some additional drinking rules!)
Also Wik: Crazy Eddie's Motie News has custom-designed drinks specific to Trump, and we are promised custom drinks for each of the other debators, so check that place for updates as well.  Big shout-out to Pinku-Sensei!
Also Also Wik to Everything Above and Below and On This Blog: Final word from Pinku-Sensei is that the other candidates' drink orders are on the Crazy Eddie site now!
OKAY AMERICA, IT'S UP TO YOU NOW.  Just remember, DRINK RESPONSIBLY and be wise when selecting your Designated Driver!  The drinking rules are below, I hope you've found a nice selection of lagers and brews, and be sure to tip your bartender/wait staff ('cause that was something Mitt Romney never did, the cheap bastid)!
Just so you know, I am only accountable for 3189 of you getting drunk tonight (total official number of article visitors).  For the remaining 284 million Americans and countless others overseas of legal drinking age, I am not your alibi.  So there. ;)

So this came up.  Oliver Willis of Like Kryptonite To Stupid and contributor to Media Matters brought up how Jeb Bush's campaign was selling watch party tickets for about $2700.00 (!) and I joked about how it would be cheaper to just stay at home to watch, order $40 in pizzas and sit around with drunk friends mocking the whole shindig.  Then this idea came up:

Yeah, I'm kinda thinking up a few rules for a drinking game meself.  And I don't drink alcoholic beverages, and even I'm thinking about how to get drunk enough to watch the coming circus act.

So, the drinking rules to the August 6th Republican Debate for the 2016 Presidential Nomination shall be thus:

IN GENERAL

• If any candidate talks about meeting Ronald Reagan in person, take a drink.
• If any candidate talks about kneeling before St. Ronnie and asking for his blessing to serve the cause as THE CHOSEN ONE, take two drinks.
• If any candidate shares a passage from his erotic Reagan fanfiction involving light bondage and tax cuts (we live in a Fifty Shades world now), throw bottle at screen.
• If any candidate praises Fox Not-News for "honesty and credibility", throw bottle at screen.
• If any candidate tries to out-pander Trump, take a drink. This also applies to Trump, who is allowed within the rules to pander as much as inhumanly possible.
• If any candidate says nice things about Jon Stewart and suggests Jon shouldn't retire this year from the Daily Show, quit drinking and stay sober because you've just witnessed the impossible.
• (Update: from @word_34 aka SkarkWeekSneak) "Hillary" "email" or "server", you have to do double shots.  Throw in "Benghazi" here too.
• (Update) If any candidate accuses Obama of being the Worst President Ever, throw a dart at a photo of Dubya taped to the wall and take two drinks.
• (Update) If any candidate calls for the defunding of Planned Parenthood, take a drink.  If the candidate calls for the arrest of Planned Parenthood staffers, take two drinks.  If the candidate calls for the arrest of women who go to Planned Parenthood even for basic women's health care needs, turn off the TV and get stinking drunk because the Republicans are pretty much writing off the women's vote even in Red States.
• (Update) If any candidate calls for the impeachment of Barack Obama over:
  Executive orders, take two drinks;
  The Iran treaty, take six drinks in honor of the other nation signatories;
  Disrespecting Congress, take seven drinks for each year Obama's had to deal with their sh-t;
  Being an illegal Marxist Muslim Kenyan, finish whole bottle.

FOR SPECIFIC CANDIDATES
(Update: As of Tuesday August 4th we know the ten contestants on the next "Prience Is Right Drunk!"  The names are in order of the Fox Rankings)

For Donald Trump: 

• If Trump says something insulting, take a drink.
• If Trump says something demonstrably false, take a drink.
• Actually, don't do either.  The second he opens his mouth under those rules, you're pretty much gonna be passed out by the fifth minute of the debate.
• If Trump says he respects Latinos and can easily win their votes, take two drinks from any Dos Equis brand in front of you and laugh your ass off.
• If Trump complains about China in any way, take the Made In China tab on any Trump-labeled designer wear and tear it off, then take a drink.

For Jeb Bush:

• If Jeb says nice things about his brother's administration, take two drinks - one for Dubya and one for Cheney - and yell at the screen.
• If Jeb brings up school vouchers, take three drinks.
• If Jeb says there shouldn't be immigration reform, drink whole bottle.
• If Jeb says Obama is a terrible foreign policy President, take a drink from every bottle made by the 2003 Coalition of the Willing, and then vomit on a picture of Bush the Elder. Please have towels and trash cans handy. 

For Scott Walker:

• If Walker brings up his union-busting habits, take a drink.
• If Walker brings up his recall survivial, take two drinks.
• If Walker brings up how he squashed his John Doe investigation, drink whole bottle.
• If Walker tries wearing a Packer Cheesehead foam hat, drink from a Chicago microbrewery label and shout "DA BEARS".
• If Walker calls himself a "job creator", throw bottle at screen.

For Mike Huckabee:

• If Huckabee claims he's a strong judge of character, scream "you hang out with child molesters!" and throw bottle at screen.
• If Huckabee talks about jamming with Ted "I Worship My God-Gun" Nugent, take two drinks and throw bottle at screen.
• If Huckabee tries to compare anything to the Holocaust, light a memorial candle and throw bottle at screen.
• If Huckabee tries to talk about stricter prison laws, or looser law enforcement rules to "fight crime", take a drink for every cop who died because of his asinine pardons as governor (5, at last count) and throw bottle at screen.
• If Huckabee appears on the screen, throw bottle at screen.

For Ben Carson:

• If Carson gets a non-Obamacare question, take a drink.
• If Carson actually answers a non-Obamacare question with a reasonable-sounding policy suggestion, drink whole bottle.
• If Carson talks like he's taken notes from Rick Perry, take three drinks.

For Ted Cruz:

• If Cruz attempts to suck the soul or eat the heart of Donald Trump live on-stage, drink whole bottle.
• If Cruz says anything about the legislation he's nuked in the House - while serving as a SENATOR - take a drink.
• If Cruz employs oratory tools that rely heavily on the teachings and practices of Cicero and Pericles, take two drinks.
• If Cruz not only panders on the issue of a Government Shutdown over Planned Parenthood, but also claims to have locked every door to the Capitol Building and threw away the key just to make certain, drink whole bottle.
• If Cruz fails to joke about Obama being born in Kenya, drink the entire bottle of whatever Canadian brand is in front of you and throw empty bottle at the Calgarian Candidate.

For Marco Rubio:

• If Rubio talks about his exaggerated family story where his parents fled Cuba well before Castro took it over, take a drink. 
• If Rubio speaks against the opening of relations with Cuba, take two drinks.
• If Rubio finishes the whole night without saying one word about immigration, finish off the bottle.
• If Rubio any says anything in Espanol, drink whole bottle.

For Rand Paul:

• If Paul mentions the gold standard, take a drink.
• If Paul discusses the need to end American interventionist activity, take a drink.
• If Paul still says we need to bomb Syria though, take four drinks.
• If Paul lights up a blunt on-stage, do the same (in legal states only).
• If Paul revs up a chainsaw, switch the TV over to Evil Dead II and watch a real expert - BRRRRRUUUUUUCCCEEEEEEE! - wield one.

For Chris Christie:

• If Christie tries to quote Springsteen, throw bottle at screen.
• If Christie tries to punch somebody on stage, take a drink.
• If Christie tries to punch one of the debate moderators, take three drinks.
• If Christie tries to punch a teacher in the audience, finish whole bottle.
• If Christie gets arrested during the debate over his ethics failures and dragged off-stage, drink whole bottle.

For John Kasich:

• If Kasich is even on the stage, take two drinks right off the bat because it probably means Christie got arrested beforehand and there was an opening.  Okay, it looks like Laughing Boy from Dayton made it.  Go ahead, Ohio, take a drink right off the bat.
• If Kasich talks about immigration reform, take a drink.
• If Kasich defends his time working for Lehman Brothers, throw bottle at screen.
• If Kasich mentions how he was with the bipartisan team that got a balanced budget going in Congress back in the 1990s, take a drink and pity the poor guy because he just used the word 'bipartisan' in front of a GOP primary crowd that considers it a trigger word.

The rest of the list is now set aside for the sad, doomed players who got played.  There's still a debate taking place between this sorry lot, so if anybody wants to get an early buzz on before the Main Event, you're happy to apply these to your wasted afternoon.
WELCOME TO THE HAPPY HOUR BREW KREWE, YOU FEW!

For Rick Perry:

• If Perry flubs a debate answer (again), take three drinks.
• If Perry says anything about a "Texas miracle" involving that state's economy, take a drink, and then prepare to pass out because that's all he's got.
• If Perry keeps looking over his shoulder, gazing into the distance, sighing repeatedly like a poor child missing his favorite roller coaster ride, take a sympathy drink.

For Rick Santorum:

• If Santorum is even on the stage, it means Rick Perry got lost on the way to the auditorium, so take three drinks right away in honor of Perry.   Oops, Perry's gonna be standing right next to him.
• If Santorum mentions gay marriage as the cause of all natural disasters, take a drink.  If the rule was to drink whole bottle, you'll end up dead from toxic effects (even if you substituted water! True story).
• If Santorum mentions man-on-dog marriage as legal now, kiss Fluffy and take a drink.
• If Santorum asks people to stop Googling his name, finish whole bottle.
• If Santorum brings up the fact he won primaries in 2012 and DAMMIT he deserves better than getting seated at the little kids' table, take a drink for every primary he won (11).

For Bobby Jindal:

• Seriously?
• No, really, seriously?
• He's getting the Happy Hour invite, which isn't going to be too happy for him.  And for all he'd done to try and wipe out Planned Parenthood in his own state, tsk tsk.
• If Jindal ever openly begs Grover Norquist to end his misery, take a drink.

For Carly Fiorina:

• Seriously?  I just can't even give you a snarky answer because you lost your only other campaign attempt.  At least with Carson and Trump they're gonna qualify for the debate, but... Seriously, no, sorry Carly, this is it.
• If Fiorina tries to bring up her California Senatorial campaign - which failed, miserably - take a drink.

For Lindsey Graham:

• This is where the rules of "top 10 polled" gets ridiculous.  Experienced politicians who paid their dues like Graham, disagree with them or not, it's not fair for them to sit out while amateurs like Trump and Carson get the spotlight.
• If by the off-chance Graham makes the Big Dance, if he argues for bombing half the Middle East as a means of convincing our enemies and allies of our manhood, take a drink, break out a map, and start crossing off the NATO allies that are going to stop taking calls from our State Department.
• If Graham riffs off his earlier joke about drinking heavily to watch these debates, toast him for his sincerity at the least.
• If Graham refers to this drinking game, finish the bottle, 'cause damn.

For George Pataki:

• Who?
• If even he shows up at the door with ID proving he can get on stage for the 5:00 round, take a drink.

For Jim Gilmore:

• Bro, dude, seriously?  NOW you're putting in for this?  Bro.  THERE ARE NO SEATS LEFT IN THE GOP CLOWN CAR.  There are LIMITS even to the Clown Car.  Even *I* know Kasich was late getting into the game.  What are YOU drinking, Jim, to make you think you can even get in on this?  /headdesk
• If he shows up in a clown outfit, just so he can pretend he belongs there, throw bottle at the screen.

This is it, folks.  We are less than TWO DAYS AWAY from the third-best sales day for alcoholic breweries across the globe we will see in our lifetimes!

And this is, again, coming from a guy who don't drink.  I will be the only Designated Driver left standing after 10:00 PM EDT.

Predicting Character: You're a Little Late to the Party Kasich

So here we go officially, getting the 16th name on the list so we can get our free-for-all Thunderdome battle royale.  Today Ohio Governor John Kasich announced his run for the Republican nomination for 2016.  Back to David Graham at the Atlantic who decided at some point this year to be a masochist and document the cheat sheet:

...In fact, Kasich might not make the stage, either—even though the first forum is being held in Ohio, the state where he’s governor. Despite a reputation for policy smarts, Kasich seems like a longshot, too moderate and technocratic for a Republican primary electorate, and possibly too peevish to handle voters and donors alike. But he’s a brainy candidate, his super PAC has raised a decent sum, and the fact that he hails from an important swing state will give him an outsize impact...

Another writer at the Atlantic, Molly Ball, goes into a little more detail, and points out how Kasich might actually stand out from the other 15 names in the field.  Because he's one who has not stuck to the orthodox Far Right script:

Kasich’s transgressions against conservative orthodoxy are many. He supports the Common Core educational standards, which the right loathes; he says he would consider allowing undocumented immigrants to become citizens; his state budgets have cut a lot of taxes, but raised others; and spending has increased on his watch. Conservatives’ primary complaint is that Kasich singlehandedly accepted the Obamacare-Medicaid expansion for his state, thus making him complicit in the most loathed policy of the loathed Democratic president.

But Kasich’s heresy is bigger than these specific ideological transgressions. It is tonal—he has golfed with Obama and generally declines to attack the president personally; he has justified his Medicaid decision on the basis of Christian compassion for the poor. And it is philosophical—Kasich is witheringly dismissive of the anti-government absolutists in his own party. “There's a sort of fantasy out there, or a myth, that we can just cut all the government and that'll give us our lower taxes,” he told me when I visited him in Ohio in February for a profile I was writing. “It doesn't work that way. You can't just get rid of all these programs and say, ‘People, just spontaneously do it!’”

Kasich still got two problems: 1) He's running in a primary for a political party that skews so far Right Wing with its voting base that there are not enough moderates inside the ranks to side with him, and 2) He's nowhere near - at the moment - making the cutoff line for the all-important first debate in August.

Calling Kasich a moderate might not be the right word to use: but compared to the rest of the field, his demonstrative faith in a functional bipartisan government - the fact he accepted dreaded Obamacare funds for Medicaid, that he's raised spending in Ohio during his tenure - puts him to the left of nearly every Republican leader out there.

Kasich is still at heart a Republican.  He's demonstrably pro-business in favor of mass deregulation, still favors tax cuts in general as policy, and tends towards social conservatism as a personal world-view.

He was also at Lehman Brothers during the build-up to the economic collapse of 2007-08, which doesn't exactly give him credit points for fiscal wisdom or smarts.

So who is Kasich?  In what respects should we identify his world-view and establish what Character traits he could employ as President?

The biography shows a son of regular middle-class parents from the Great Lakes region born of the Baby Boomer generation.  Interested in politics since college - he made the effort to meet with Nixon, something he openly prides in - he'd been involved in elected offices from the state level up to Congress.  From there he gets tabbed for House Budget Committee chair duties when the Republican gain control of the House in 1994.  From there (via the newspaper Columbus Dispatch):

...in 1994, new House Speaker Newt Gingrich tapped a 42-year-old fiscal hawk named John Kasich to lead the House Budget Committee.

He chose Kasich, Gingrich told The Dispatch, because he had “courage, intelligence, drive, ambition and a willingness to dream big...”

...He was the brash young lawmaker who managed to annoy virtually every interest group in Washington, on either side of the political spectrum. But he also forged a series of unlikely and sometimes startling alliances in his quest to get things done...

“...Just because party leadership was thinking one way didn’t mean John would follow blindly,” said Bruce Cuthbertson, a longtime Kasich aide who now is a GOP consultant. “But along with that independence was the idea of always trying to build coalitions, trying to find reasons to work with people rather than find reasons to work against them...”

His tenure as governor since 2010 gives us an idea how Kasich would perform as a national executive: slashing taxes but also keeping government functioning and serving the needs of the public.  Kasich's most notable moves on the national stage highlight the fights and follies of being a modern Republican: his first term focused on dismantling the power of unions in his state, which failed when a voter-driven referendum overrode his efforts; his second term focused on accepting Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, which the party base viewed as betrayal.

Oddly enough, Kasich's remained popular both terms.  Which means he plays well for Ohioans despite the rancor of the national political figures in his own party.

So how would I chart Kasich?

John Kasich - Governor, Ohio
Positives: Long-term elected official with more experience - legislative and executive - than every other candidate in both parties.  Won re-election handily in a toss-up state, one of the key large-population battleground states for 2016 that the Republicans desperately need to even have a chance at winning.  Unlike other governors during his tenure - Jindal, Christie, even Walker - has remained popular in his own state.  Is viewed as more fiscal conservative than anything else: while he's still pro-fetus he's openly pro-people on gay marriage, and argues a Christian faith - the reason he supports Medicaid for the poor - that avoids the demagoguery the social conservatives enable. Has a reputation for abrasiveness but somehow inspires personal loyalty where least expected.
Negatives: Is coming very late to the ongoing horse race, with far too many candidates ahead of him on the wait list.  Not exactly Mister Personality, has a reputation among his own colleagues for brusque and curt behavior.  While he's ambitious, has a blase attitude about campaigning for President.  His bipartisan focus may appeal to moderate and independent voters, but he has to survive getting through a primary system dominated by partisan voters who'll abhor such tactics.  Despite his tax-cut stances, is still hated by fiscals conservatives for increasing state spending (an honest question would be has Kasich been able to balance the state budgets on a consistent basis?). One of the few Republican figures to support Obamacare, for God's sake that's like a Democratic candidate openly supporting Dick Cheney's foreign policy positions.
Chances: Even with his name being floated for months, he hasn't broken into the Top 10 names on the polls.  It is likely he could see a boost now that he's official, but he's got to steal polling numbers from candidates viewed of the same cloth as himself, which aren't many (Jeb, Rubio, Walker, Graham).  His resume might impress but his own personality won't.
Character Chart: I keep coming back to how the Republican party itself leans so far over to Active-Negative behaviors - rigid Uncompromising attitudes above all - that every Republican candidate is pretty much going to fulfill that character.  Kasich is the only one so far making me re-think that position.  His case history, while conservative, highlights a political figure who acts as though government can be effective.  His willingness to buck national dogma over Obamacare points to a possible Adaptive trait.  Among the current Republican candidates, he's the closest any of them get to being an Active-Positive.

It's too bad he's got to go sell himself to a crowd of voters who want Active-Negatives demolishing everything about government just to tick everybody else off.  I doubt Kasich can win enough delegate votes to even justify showing up at the 2016 convention.

Some Notes About The Never-Ending Horse Race to 2016: It's ONLY July 2015 Edition

It doesn't finish, because I guarantee you on the Wednesday after 2016 Election Night someone is going to rev up a 2020 campaign.  /headdesk

But in the meanwhile, just these thoughts to consider before I delve into more dedicated writing:

• You-Know-Who had an interesting weekend where his polling numbers jumped higher than all the other GOP reindeer, just as he was laying waste to the personal biography of one of his intra-party critics.  When The Donald insulted McCain by mocking his five years as a Vietnam War POW, the outrage among the Republican elite and their media allies went to Eleven on the hypocrisy dial. The polling may yet dip on Trump, going after McCain may be a bridge too far, but one of Trump's early campaigning strengths has been stoking the outrage among a party base that doesn't trust their party leadership in the first place: for every veteran voter Trump may lose he may well get two wingnut voters in return.  Additional polling may have to play it out.  Either way, Trump has not apologized and probably never will: he is playing a blunt style that may violate a lot of Machiavellian rules but it's working for him.  There *is* a point of no return, but for now nobody can yet tell what that will be...
• I can't joke anymore about Scott Walker's John Doe investigation.  Wisconsin's Supreme Court voted to pretty much kill off the search into Walker's campaign violations, meaning he can now campaign just as illegally at the national level.  It's interesting to note that Walker is currently Number Two behind Trump.  It's also interesting to note that Walker's shaking the War Flag crying out to attack Iran on Day One if he makes the White House.  This is how extreme the primaries are going to get.
• John Kasich, current governor of Ohio, is announcing for reals today, making it officially a Round of 16 for the GOP primrary roster.  More on him later when I can do a quick Character review.
• I just started reading Between the World And Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates, having paused in my reading of Go Set a Watchman, as the current discussions over Coates' work has priority.  I still plan on tag-teaming the reviews for both as I feel they are thematically appropriate.

Also, pro football season is warming up and they're already mocking my team the Bucs without mercy or care.  Ah well.

Can This Happen? The Numbers Of the Republican 2016 Chaos Theory

(Update to the update: oops, had the wrong link to the Mike's Blog Round Up.  Still, if you're visiting, HI THERE!)

I think I've linked before to National Review - more out of spite than anything, if I recall - but it's rare, so I have to note that in doing some digging into how crazy the GOP primaries are going to get I came across an article that was gleeful about the possibility the whole thing goes to the July 2016 convention:

How interesting? Top-tier presidential campaigns are preparing for the still-unlikely scenario that the nomination fight goes all the way to the 2016 Republican National Convention. There hasn’t been a brokered convention since 1976, but the strength of the GOP field (note: Joel Gehrke's words, not mine), when coupled with the proliferation of super PACs, increases the chances that several candidates could show up in Cleveland next July with an army of delegates at their backs.

Now granted, as a student of history, I would be intrigued to watch that most epic of political dog-fights (an intra-party civil war) that a brokered convention would be.  However, I'm a little skeptical about 2016 being divided up between candidates as a good thing for the GOP, due to several factors:

• There isn't a serious front-runner - I'm talking someone with a double-digit lead over the next candidate - that can steady and solidify his hold on a brokered convention.  That could well mean three or more players fighting over one chair (the Presidency) with the peace offering (Vice Presidency) not even a satisfactory bargaining chip.
• There are a lot of Active-Negative egos on the campaign trail this year: I cannot imagine any of the top vote getters - Jeb, Walker, Huckabee, Cruz, Trump - subsuming their egos/ids long enough to let a sane deal get hammered out at the convention.  Huckabee could under the circumstances, but if he's thisclose to being the nominee I doubt it.
• There are no likable "dark horse" possibilities at the moment that could be a "safe" alternative for the party to back (mostly because so many of those possibilities are polling below 5 percent at the moment).
• Any possible deal getting made would have to satiate - not just mollify, but validate - the Far Right voters who clearly did not give enough support to the Establishment GOP leaders' preferred choice (Bush... or Walker).  That means coming out into the general election with such a hard-core platform - not just anti-Obamacare and anti-taxes, but also anti-immigrant to the point of a declared race war vs. Latinos - that the general election could well drive all the moderate/no-party-affiliate voters screaming into the happy arms of the Democrats (even if Evil Hillary is the candidate and is openly Evil about it).

Let's just look at the scenario, how it might play out.  There's a site I found called Green Papers that goes into more detail about the convention rules and delegation counts, but let's stick to the basics.

• There are 2470 total delegates planned out for the 2016 Convention in Cleveland.
• It takes 1236 delegates to clinch the nomination outright.
• Let's say that none of the major names likely to survive all the way to July 2016 are able to get over 25 percent of all delegates.  That means not only did the top two names not get enough to win, those top two candidates do not have enough to make a deal between themselves to snag the President and Vice-President slots... and that neither of them can even deal with any of the lesser delegate holders to pass the finish line.  This is why I'm thinking the Veep seat won't be a decent bargaining chip when the time comes.

Let's try this: Bush, Walker, Paul, Cruz, Huckabee, Trump and Rubio all survive to the last primary day.  But it plays out like this for the delegate count:

Walker = 568
Huckabee = 494
Bush = 445
Trump = 271
Cruz = 247
Rubio = 247
Paul = 198

You'll notice that Walker and Huckabee together can't break that 1236 count, so there's no team-up possibility there.  All of the possible combos won't work.  In this scenario, the back-room party leaders will have some difficulties: if Jeb Bush had secured the first or second spot on the list, given his family's connections he could easily make enough deals and make the "sensible" argument as the "Establishment" figurehead to control the convention.  But if he's down in third place or lower, he can't make any "sensible" claims in that regards, especially if it's clear the GOP voting base won't trust or accept him.

What is going to have to happen is that the top guys - Walker, Huckabee and Bush - are going to try and grab as many delegates from the bottom four as best as possible.  But you can't offer the VP spot to all four, so that's a no-go.  It's interesting to note that the lower four names have three of the furthest wingnut candidates - Trump, Cruz and Paul - more interested in pandering to the base than the top three (who are all pretty well-versed in pandering already, which should be telling).

That means a lot of horse-trading and a ton of concessions - giving into extremist positions that won't play well to a moderate/independent audience - from whomever makes the best offers.  Which is not a good thing for a political party already stuck in a dogmatic mindset: the Republicans can well end up with a set of agenda policies so Far Right than they already are it would unpalatable to the general electorate.  I'm talking platform policies that are openly hostile - rather than just dog-whistling - against Latinos, women, college students, even families that do not fit the purity worldview of the Far Right.

Of course, the counter to that scenario is "can that even happen?"

It depends on if delegation wins by state are Winner-Take-All or Proportional.  Some states do seem to be WTA (Florida and California) and so a winning primary candidate could well get hundreds of delegates rather than piecemeal.  But Texas seems to use a Proportional, and they're one of the bigger delegate-holding states for the GOP (esp. thanks to their bonus counts).  A lot of toss-up states like Ohio and Virginia are Proportionals as well.

There's also the factor that one candidate will do better in one state's primary and not another.  Trump may play well in North Carolina but I guarantee you he's going to get stomped in Latino-heavy states like Florida and California (he may God help us win enough anti-immigrant votes in Texas to snag proportional delegates from there).  Jeb Bush may get Florida as its his support base, but may not get anything from Wisconsin or Tennessee (or 40 other states).  Walker could well clean up in the Midwest where his brand of politicking may work, but could well crash in California or the Northeast.

That factor is now in play because the earlier primary method of weeding out weaker candidates can no longer work.  In this post-Citizens United world, a candidate can garner the love of a Sugar Daddy SuperPAC and stay in all 50 states without fear of campaign debts.  That means a candidate that would normally fail in the early rounds - Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina have been the Filter states since the 1970s - can power through to the states where they could thrive and garner enough delegates to earn a seat at the convention dealer's table.

The Republicans are going to have to pray for three things:

1. That there's a clear front-runner - especially Jeb, maybe Walker - even if he doesn't win enough delegate counts
2. That the top delegate winner has just enough - I'd say over 1000 delegates, enough to assert a lead but not enough to win outright - to secure the nomination by making a VP deal with a relatively sane lower-tier delegate holder
3. That... aw, who am I kidding? I want the Republicans to suffer bwhahahahahaha

...except for the fact that given the nature of the Two-Party dominance in Presidential elections, I dread the likelihood of a wingnut convention winner coming out with a wingnut platform.  No matter how repulsive that platform could get, we run the risk of a close election - damn you, Debacle 2000! - that could haunt us for decades.

Unless Trump does well enough in the primaries to convince himself he can branch out as a third-party candidate.  His Id - more powerful than his already outsized Ego - could well go that impulsive route.  Instead of 2000 we'd be replaying 1992, when a rich egotist in Ross Perot split votes away from Bush the Elder's GOP to allow Clinton to win a minority popular vote / majority Electoral count.  I do imagine a number of Republican operatives are losing sleep over THAT possibility...

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?