US Presidential Candidates

Not being a US citizen I hesitate to comment about the next presidential election candidates, but do have a question concerning one I saw on TV recently.

Is Ted Cruz a serious contender, or is someone running a spoof? His views as reported don't seem sane and if he was elected the whole world would be in trouble.

I apologise in advance if I'm causing trouble here, but I would like some polite feed back.

Yes Ted Cruz is a serious contender. He is one of the leaders of the Tea Party wing of the Republican party.

His chances of winning the nomination are close to zero. Although I did see some poly sci types post scenarios where he does win the nomination. We have multiple highly qualified and reasonably popular candidates running for the Republican nomination. The scenarios where Cruz wins have the mainstream Republican candidates splitting the mainstream Republican vote into such tiny pieces that Cruz wins the delegates in the winner take all states by winning a plurality by locking up the entirety of the Tea Party vote. These scenarios also depend on the fact that the voters in primaries are more activist than in the general election, so the percentage of Tea Party types in the primary electorate is much higher than it is in the general. However, chances of this happening in reality are slim. It would require a perfect storm situation.

I think it is a good thing that he is running. Although the establishment Republicans hate them, the Tea Party is an important, if small, portion of the Republican party and their candidate should be represented among the Republican choices in the primaries.

It will also be good for the rest of the Republican voters. The Tea Party positions tend in general to be the same as those of the party as a whole. The biggest difference is the intensity. The mainstream Republican primary electorate wants it's candidates to hold moderate versions of those positions, not be Democrat-lite. Ted Cruz is not a typical politician. He is an uncompromising guy not afraid to make enemies of powerful establishment politicians. His presence on the campaign trail will help force the other more mainstream types to clarify their positions on matters of importance to the Republican electorate. He's the kind of guy that will bring up the issues everyone else wants to ignore and then they will be forced to take a public position on them. Bad for the politicians, good for the voters.

Incidentally while I think he adds a great deal to the campaign, I don't want him to win. That uncompromising style of his would be disastrous as a president. He and Obama have that in common.

Daryl wrote:Not being a US citizen I hesitate to comment about the next presidential election candidates,

Comment away! It's more fun that way.

Is it just me or does Hilary Clinton seem to be playing the role of Mitt Romney in the primaries this time around? Remember how every week the story was: Mitt is inevitable but the voters don't like him and are searching for an alternative. Every week it was a different candidate: Michelle Bachman - nope she's crazy, Rick Perry - nope he's an idiot, Herman Cain - nope sexual harassment scandal, Newt Gingrich - nope he's mean, OK we're stuck with Mitt - do we really have to pick him....

biochem wrote:Yes Ted Cruz is a serious contender. He is one of the leaders of the Tea Party wing of the Republican party.

snip

Incidentally while I think he adds a great deal to the campaign, I don't want him to win. That uncompromising style of his would be disastrous as a president. He and Obama have that in common.

I tend to agree. I don't mind someone unwilling to compromise core principles but willing to compromise around the edges. Sort of like Scott Walker in Wisconsin. His success in that bluer than blue state has been remarkable. In many ways he is more Tea Party than Cruz in that he has executed his promises in the midst of powerful opposition. He has remained true to his convictions but has been able to compromise enough to win over an electorate with a heavy leavening of rabid progressives. I am concerned about his lack of foreign policy experience, but not about his ability to maintain his principles in governing.

Regardless of any concern, I do not want another Bush in the White House. He will be another Progressive President. We don't need that. For anyone that thinks the Republicans don't have progressive wing, think again. The only differences between establishment Republicans and Democrats are the pace of consolidating power in the Federal government and who should wield that power. The Clinton's and Bushes have been close since Senior left office. Heck, Senior's and Clinton's campaign managers liked each other enough to marry and have remained married.

PeterZ wrote:
I tend to agree. I don't mind someone unwilling to compromise core principles but willing to compromise around the edges. Sort of like Scott Walker in Wisconsin. His success in that bluer than blue state has been remarkable. In many ways he is more Tea Party than Cruz in that he has executed his promises in the midst of powerful opposition. He has remained true to his convictions but has been able to compromise enough to win over an electorate with a heavy leavening of rabid progressives. I am concerned about his lack of foreign policy experience, but not about his ability to maintain his principles in governing.

At this point in the campaign, I like Walker. I like him a lot. Basically for the same reasons you cite. One thing I want to know more about is his ability to choose people. The presidency cannot by micromanaged, so the ability to choose good qualified people is the single most important skill a president can have.

Regardless of any concern, I do not want another Bush in the White House. He will be another Progressive President. We don't need that. For anyone that thinks the Republicans don't have progressive wing, think again. The only differences between establishment Republicans and Democrats are the pace of consolidating power in the Federal government and who should wield that power. The Clinton's and Bushes have been close since Senior left office. Heck, Senior's and Clinton's campaign managers liked each other enough to marry and have remained married.

I'll disagree with you slightly here. I'm not particularly excited about Jeb (at this point in the campaign I'd prefer Walker to him), but he was an extremely popular and effective governor in Florida. The Florida electorate knows him well, liked him then and still like him now. His popularity in a purple state bodes well for the general election. I see his biggest problems being 1. Bush fatigue and 2. he's too closely associated with the establishment.

I also like Jindal a great deal. He's been doing spectacular work in the blue state of Louisiana, especially in the area of school reform. Louisana schools were some of the worst in the nation and he took on the powerful teachers unions to improve them profoundly. And he is a strong opponent of common core. (real math problem my 3rd grader came home with - What does 3x4= Show why in 3 different ways. Common core cares less about knowing that 3x4=12, than that the students can draw tape diagrams, arrays etc). His biggest problem is lack of national experience and more importantly a national organization. Plus he's late to the game to announce. I see him as more likely to win the VEEP stakes than to win the nomination.

I also enjoy having Ben Carson in the race. He has zero chance of winning and with zero political experience, I am glad he has zero chance of winning. But he has some interesting new ideas and frankly we need that as a country. Most of his ideas aren't fully fleshed out, but they make good starting points.

Of course Jeb is popular in Florida. Its purple at best. The key problems Bush has are his positions supporting the current iteration of core knowledge and amnesty. Making the curriculum formation decision for our schools more centralized and disenfranchising Americans with illegal aliens are two reason Bush is at his core a progressive.

PeterZ wrote:Of course Jeb is popular in Florida. Its purple at best. The key problems Bush has are his positions supporting the current iteration of core knowledge and amnesty. Making the curriculum formation decision for our schools more centralized and disenfranchising Americans with illegal aliens are two reason Bush is at his core a progressive.

I'm not exactly a Bush fan, so I'm probably not his best defender. I'll agree with you on his positions on common core and immigration. I particularly HATE his position on common core. He's positives are:

1. The skills of governing. Not ideology, but the skills required to be an effective executive. The ability to pick the right people, the ability to get an agenda through a legislature etc. The common sense not to offend a foreign country by sending back a bust of one of its famous leaders. It's his biggest plus actually. However, many of the other candidates are very good here too.

2. Ideology positives: he's a moderate economic conservative. He's better than Romney. Not exactly a ringing endorsement but not horrible either.

Personally I'd prefer Walker to him, but I would prefer him over Cruz or Rand Paul. I like some of their positions but in a more moderate form than what they espouse.

biochem wrote:I'm not exactly a Bush fan, so I'm probably not his best defender. I'll agree with you on his positions on common core and immigration. I particularly HATE his position on common core. He's positives are:

1. The skills of governing. Not ideology, but the skills required to be an effective executive. The ability to pick the right people, the ability to get an agenda through a legislature etc. The common sense not to offend a foreign country by sending back a bust of one of its famous leaders. It's his biggest plus actually. However, many of the other candidates are very good here too.

2. Ideology positives: he's a moderate economic conservative. He's better than Romney. Not exactly a ringing endorsement but not horrible either.

Personally I'd prefer Walker to him, but I would prefer him over Cruz or Rand Paul. I like some of their positions but in a more moderate form than what they espouse.

I am less enthusiastic about governing skills than I am about persuasion. Reagan could govern very well. He did not achieve good governance because he had some sixth sense about what was a winnable legislative battle and what wasn't. No, he could share his vision for what legislative efforts were worth supporting and bring people with him. Bush can't take his vision and bring the electorate with him. He has to craft his vision to accommodate the legislative limits he faces. Both of these skills lead to accomplishing legislative tasks. The difference is that some things are better left undone rather than taking what the legislature gives you.

I don't believe Bush knows when to stop in his effort not to appear ineffective. I don't believe this both because Bush is more comfortable with a more intrusive government and because he would favor legislative action over inaction for political reasons.

I would prefer either Paul or Cruz over Bush. Not because I believe either is a political paragon of biblical proportions. I don't. I just think both would act to promote greater limits on the Executive branch. Bush would look to take advantage of what Obama has opened the door for.

The good news for me is that Paul and Cruz do not have enough support among the conservative base to overcome their other limits. Walker does have that support. Enough to overcome his being on the establishment republican's excrement list. I am really looking at how Walker will search for foreign policy advisors. His weakness there will hurt him more than anything else in this election.

One thing that politicians do need is the ability to laugh at themselves.
George Bush may not have been the sharpest crayon in the box, but at least he could do humour.
Are any presidential candidates able to match that?