But all of this activity has really just been a long
preseason leading up to the real race, which starts February 1 in
Iowa. The presidential primary season is when all of the stumping and
campaigning really counts. It’s when the things candidates say—or don’t say for
that matter—either pays off or works against them.
From here on out, the primary debates will determine each
party’s nominee for President of the United States in the fall. It’s when the
men get separated from the boys, or—for the benefit of feminists like Hillary—where
the wheat gets separated from the chaff.
All of that having been said, the next month or so will
answer a lot questions have I concerning each party’s leading contenders.
On the democratic side, the primaries will show whether
Hillary Clinton is the real deal this time around for her party, or if she is
yet another bridesmaid. Is this race hers to lose, or somebody else’s to win? Eight
years ago, the primaries started out hers to lose. But after Iowa, the race
suddenly became Barack Obama’s to lose. He stole the limelight and the media
attention right out from under Hillary like a magician pulling the table cloth
out from under carefully set crystal and china.
At this point, no one in the Democratic Party seems poised to
pull off an Obasm this time. Bernie Sanders is no Obama. He’s not the
charismatic snake oil salesman that Barack is. And I just don’t sense the same
energy from him that I did from Obama in 2008.
None of the other candidates have shown the same zeal for
the nomination that Hillary has, either.
So, for now, the 2016 Democratic nomination is Hillary’s to
lose. And lose she still could. Her latest campaign focus shows just how far
out of touch she is with mainstream voters. Sure, hardline feminists love and
applaud Hillary’s “equal pay for equal work” campaign. But, begging everyone’s
pardon here, this argument is about a quarter century behind the times. Maybe
longer.
The issue was originally raised in the 1970s, and its banner
carried through the 1980s. Anti-discrimination laws passed 25-30 years ago and
vigorously enforced since then have mostly made wage discrimination a non-issue
anymore. Certainly, the problem has not been completely eradicated; but it is
so rare these days that it makes little sense to turn it into a major
presidential campaign issue. Especially since matters like foreign trade, the
stock market, jobs, terrorism—both foreign and domestic—and national security
are at the forefront of concerns most Americans have in 2016.
Hillary’s focus on something that affects comparatively few
women these days than it a quarter century ago demonstrates how out of touch
she is with the issues that drive voters today.
Though energetic in her public speaking, Hillary’s voice is
mostly monotone and fails to inspire the confidence that Barack Obama was able
to elicit eight years ago.
Hillary is the quintessential professional politician whose
resume clearly shows she is trying to move up the proverbial career ladder yet
again. It began as First Lady next to President Bill Clinton, then continued to
the U.S. Senate after a calculated move to New York State to curry favor and
votes from people more sympathetic to her views.
After just one full term in the Senate, she launched her
first presidential campaign, and was rewarded with a concessionary gift of the
Secretary of State cabinet post in exchange for conceding her primary race
against Barack Obama.
Now Hillary is back again trying to reach the apex, the
zenith of political power. She wants the Oval Office for her very own, and she
is going to try every trick in the book this time to get it. Hillary’s two
greatest virtues are her tenacity and willfulness. Those also have the
potential to become negative traits as well.
Plus, there are voters who have grown both tired and weary
of the Clinton name in national politics; a name that has some negative
connotations attached to it. There are democratic voters who are as tired of
hearing “Clinton” in the presidential races as there are republican voters
tired of hearing “Bush.”
It remains to be seen whether or not Hillary has what it
takes—the blessing of the DNC—to go the distance this year. Or, will some dark
horse suddenly emerge in the next month or so to steal the spotlight from her
yet again? We’ll see.
As for the GOP, will Donald Trump surge the republicans to a
victory in November, or doom it to failure? Trump is a controversial candidate,
and those individuals can be like sticks of wet dynamite: unpredictable,
unstable and dangerous.
Trump talks too much, and that is saying something in a
field cluttered with career politicians. He flaps his gums more often than a gossip
at a bazaar. Worse, he says what he thinks, but he doesn’t think what he says.
The biggest detriment to Trump is his popular reputation coming
into the presidential race. On the one hand, he has developed a reputation over
the years as a financial cutthroat. He has also come to be known as an arrogant
jerk on his former reality television show, “The Apprentice.” He’s also been
known in the past as a social playboy, a jet-setter, and a prideful rich guy.
As a result, many people already have a preconceived opinion of “The Donald.”
His bombastic style on the political stump has not helped to improve this
reputation.
It is true that millions may vote for Trump on notoriety
alone. But millions more may not for the same reason. He has the potential to
really polarize GOP voters and make the choice clearer than ever for those
sitting on the fence.
This can have both positive and negative consequences for
the Republican Party, and it may be why someone like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has
been gaining steadily on Trump over the past month. The party’s conservative
base, although energized initially by Trump’s hardline stand on immigration and
terrorism, may be growing weary of “The Donald’s” bombastic rhetoric and tired
of his self-serving showmanship. They appear interested in fielding a candidate
with similar conservative views as Trump, but without the same offensive style
and without the same negative aura that “The Donald” comes with.
It makes me wonder if Cruz or Rubio will emerge as the
frontrunners after February. It’s possible.
But I don’t see Carson there after New Hampshire or South
Carolina. He is quietly slipping in the polls and out of the spotlight. Carson,
a genuinely nice man, lacks an edge to his campaign that has energized those of
Trump and Cruz.
Nice guys are fine, but as president, voters generally
prefer a Chief Executive with an edge. Someone who’s got the moxie to stand up
to our country’s enemies, both foreign and domestic. I’m not convinced Dr.
Carson has that trait, and it will ultimately doom his run for the White House.
Jeb Bush is running such a bland campaign that it has never
gotten off the ground. I’ve not even seen one ad of his in my neck of the
woods. I think he is acutely aware that the voting public has grown tired of
the Bushes in the presidential culture. That is why he postponed his run until
2016. He needed to give the public time to get used to politics without either
his dad or his brother. But I’m not so sure enough time can elapse after 12
years of a Bush in the Oval Office.
Not terribly bad years, for the most part, mind you, but
still tiring nonetheless. Few people get excited about supporting a family
oligarchy, and a presidential pedigree.
But the fact remains that Bush seems to have no real
intention or motivation to win the party’s nomination. Otherwise, there would
be some energy coming from his camp; some effort to market him up against
Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Carson.
As for Fiorina and the remainder of the field, they are just
there to add color to the race.
The nomination, for now, is Trumps to lose and Cruz’s to
win.
Trump has the stuff—the money and the moxie—to go the
distance into November. But does he really have the backing of the Republican
Party? Or, will the GOP decide to play things safer with an alternative like
Ted Cruz?
We’ll find out starting in Iowa.
