February 26, 2016--Politico-Babble

Thus far my tally is 22 and 37. Twenty-two "lanes" and 37 "paths."

Last election cycle everyone was talking about "brands" and "narratives."

Were Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Herman Cain running for president or teasing that they might do so because they seriously thought they had a chance to be nominated--forget elected--or were they running to enhance their brands, their ability to command top-dollar speaker fees and secure seven-figure book deals?

And then what about poor Mitt Romney's ability to explain and represent himself to voters? it was said that a coherent and attractive narrative was missing. In fact, running up to his eventual nomination, all his rivals were criticized for the same thing--the lack of a convincing narrative about how their life stories and experiences wove together into a plausible and engaging picture that plain folks could understand and within which find at least a semblance of authenticity.

Four years ago, this politico-babble was purloined from the world of marketing and advertising. It was thought--still is--that unless a product or service has a strong brand identity (read essence) it would not stand out, would languish. This was especially true if that product or service didn't include a compelling narrative that people could relate to and thereby eventually consider purchasing.

This time around, if you listen carefully, as I have been attempting to do, on the cable news networks and in publications commenting on the primaries and caucuses, you'll hear all about paths and lanes.

Once I tuned into this I've been keeping a tally of how often these are used to explain the state of the Republican and Democratic campaigns. Particulalry, how individual candidates are faring.

At this point is is being noted that as Hillary Clinton and Donald TRUMP widen their leads, it is difficult to chart a path to the nomination for _____ .

Fill in the blank with, say John Kasich, who continues to claim he is a legitimate candidate, not just in it to polish his brand (he does at least have a credible narrative) or increasingly Bernie Sanders whose now unlikely path to the Democratic nomination requires him to get about 55 percent of the votes through the mega-primaries of March. A long and winding path for sure.

And, to make matters worse, what lane or lanes are open for Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio? Cruz's big-picture strategy from the beginning was the Evangelical Lane. With a charismatic preacher for a father (a Cuban Canadian citizen no less), a well-worn bible, and a copy of the Constitution close at hand, this was his lane and should have stood him in good stead in Iowa (it did with a few dirty tricks thrown in to help) and was supposed to then be wide open for him in South Carolina.

But TRUMP riled these plans, blocking Cruz's lane much like the way Chris Crispy blocked those leading to the George Washington Bridge.

And Rubio's lane was supposed to be the one leading to establishment support. Jeb Bush and John Kasich made a bit of a mess of that--if not blocking it, minimally trying to wedge their way into it, which is why there is so much pressure from Rubio supporters, especially after last night's effective debate for Rubio, for Kasich to drop out this week, if possible today, so with Jeb also out of the way that lane would be wide open for Marco.

Maybe Rubio will try to make a deal, promising to name Kasich his vice presidential running mate. On the other hand, TRUMP may have already made that deal with the Ohio governor--to stay in the race, blocking Rubio's until the convention and then . . .

Rubio should live so long. Kasich is going nowhere. He can live on, campaigning on fumes and to whom do you think Kasich would prefer to be second banana?  Rubio? TRUMP?

I have no idea how these politico-babble terms leach their way into the tsunamic vocabulary of political chatter, but there you are.

22-37.

February 10, 2016--Jeb!

During a long interview on Monday on Morning Joe, don't quote me, but I came to conclude that Jeb Bush was very impressive.

He was personable, relaxed, almost likable; but more important revealed genuine knowledge of the issues, domestic and international. And his ideas about what to do about them seemed well thought out and less radical or pandering than his GOP opponents'.

I found myself not ready to vote for him but thinking about him differently.

Yes, big-winner TRUMP is right--he has an energy, fire-in-the-belly problem. It feels as if family forces and the resulting competitive, almost Oedipal inner demons are propelling him forward as opposed to his motivation coming from a more authentic interest in running for president.

I recognize that the electorate thus far has not been that interested in "experience." With the exception of how Marco Rubio is more and more being viewed as having no experiences whatsoever to prepare him for the presidency other than a lifetime of running for office and a series of predigested sound bites that, we now know, he repeats robotically over and over again as if he has neurological issues.

But, if we are beginning to gets serious about selecting candidates, thinking who might actually make decent presidents, the two "best-prepared" candidates are Bush and Hillary Clinton.

No matter what else we think about them, no matter what we conclude about the quality of their actual accomplishments--pretty thin--they are the only two (maybe the surging John Kasich also qualifies) who have a grasp of issues, a modicum of relevant experiences, and plans to solve or deal with actual problems.

One more thought--

If we care about the country, in addition to struggling to figure out who to vote for, we should resist the temptation to root for a weak candidate from the other party.

Thus, if we support Bernie or Hillary, we shouldn't hope that Ted or Marco is nominated because we assume either one would be the weakest opponent. Since one never knows what happens on Election Day, we should hope that the best of the lot is nominated in case he somehow manages to be elected in November.

The same should thought should be posed to TRUMP or Jeb! supporters. If your candidate loses to the Democratic nominee, who among them is best suited to be your president because the political cliché is true--whoever wins is president for all of us.

That is with the exception of all the folks who tell me they're moving to Canada if The Donald is elected. These, by the way, are the same people, still residing here, who planned to move there if Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush was elected.

September 24, 2015--Run, Joe, Run

Though the vast majority of Democrats think Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy, she is still the odds-on favorite to win the nomination.

Since an even greater percentage of Americans say they do not trust her, because of that it is unlikely she can be elected.

Trust is a very big deal when it comes to electing presidents.

On the other side, Republican leaders are beginning to conclude that Donald TRUMP has a very good chance of being nominated. The rest of the field is so weak, he is so well known (and in his idiosyncratic way liked), and enough of the GOP base (who dominate the nomination process) are so fed up with business-as-usual, that they are sticking with him even though he continues to say things almost daily that would knock a traditional candidate out of the race.

The reason why the Republican establishment, including the big-money boys are so upset is not because they disagree with TRUMP about immigration, the economy, and international affairs, is because they feel, probably correctly, that he can win the nomination but, also correctly, feel he would lose to Hillary.

So, if things proceed on their course, Hillary Clinton, deeply flawed as she is, is most probably our next president.

Bernie Sanders is an attractive fantasy alternative to progressive Democrats, and he may win the New Hampshire primary, he has no chance of being nominated and if there is anything more unlikely than "no chance," he has an even less chance of being elected. Even Donald TRUMP would defeat him.

Then, in regard to both parties, the political professionals have rigged their primary processes to make it easier for Jeb Bush and Clinton to win the nominations, feeling a year or so ago when the rules and calendar were determined, that they were their party's strongest potential candidates.

Both parties' nomination calendars were rigged and the small number of debates allowed were to benefit the two favorites. Fewer debates meant that lesser-known candidates had less chance to become known and compressing the primary season to just a few months would mean there would be less time for internecine party warfare.

But a funny thing is happening on the way to the two preordained nominations--Hillary Clinton has been exposed as less then trustworthy (emails and such), Jeb Bush is proving to be a dud, and then there is The Donald who barely needed any debates or all that much time to become better known since he is about as well-know as all his opponents combined.

Therefore, it's time for Joe Biden to jump in.

That is, from the perspective of progressives who do not want to see Hillary nominated or a Republican such as TRUMP, or Jeb for that matter, elected.

At the moment, Biden would have not much chance to defeat Hillary. There isn't that much time to get rolling and he has no money. Clinton has hundreds of millions either in the bank or pledged.

But the fact that he is surging in the polls suggests there is a pent-up interest in him or, minimally, Clinton fatigue, and thus much of the money pledged to her could quickly migrate to Joe.

Notice how that has already happened on the Republican side--former candidate and frontrunner Scott Walker was about to be anointed with hundreds of millions of support from the Koch Brothers. That money is now seeking a new candidate. Ditto for Sheldon Adelson's hundreds of millions.

Among Democrats the same thing could happen.

Biden is a credible candidate. He has the same progressive values as Clinton, is at least as well-prepared to assume the presidency (her resume is her biggest asset), and has been right about as much as she has been wrong when it comes to foreign affairs, especially regarding Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. As Secretary of State, she was largely a failure. All of this will be fully exposed if she becomes the nominee and it would weaken her further.

And then there are the authenticity and liability factors. Side-by-side Biden would stand out. He has no need to have a personality makeover as Hillary is currently attempting to pull off by going on the Ellen and Colbert shows.

Even Joe's propensity to say goofy things these days would not be much of a liability. At a time when our national elections are more-and-more about likability, he is as likable as Donald TRUMP.

So, run, Joe, run.