Too bad. He had potential and Walker made mistakes, but I think Trump killed his campaign, especially by loudly retailing the, and I'm going to use a clinical term here, bullshit claims of a previous Walker opponent, Mary Burke. Trump did the same thing in the last debate, and Walker objected to it, but after that moment CNN assured that Walker was barely on the screen any more. And that was the end. Trump is pretty much dead to me anyway, but his performance in re Walker was particularly egregious. You can highlight policy differences, but to outright lie is beyond the pale. And that's what Trump did in this matter. Go ahead and support Trump if you like his attitude and his swagger, but understand what you're getting is a man without any fixed principles other than his own self-regard. Trump will be a conservative champion until he gets bored with it. When that's over, he'll wipe his butt with all of his acolytes and not think twice about it. Again, if that's your thing, feel free to get on his bandwagon.
I don't have a favorite candidate at this point. If I had to pick today, I'd rank them as follows:
Rubio -- a compromise, but at least plausible
Fiorina -- not sure she's really the right person, but worth a listen
Cruz -- like him, but I don't think he's electable
Carson -- a very nice man and brilliant at what he does, but he'll not last
Trump -- look in my eyes, what do you see? Cult of personality
Bush -- go home, "Jeb!" Seriously, go home
I don't think anyone else has a chance. Do you see any sign of, say, Bobby Jindal fever? I sure don't.
7 comments:
You've essentially wiped out the whole field of 17; quite a trick! Rubio disqualifies himself by being wrong on immigration, and by simply appearing too young. Fiorina would be a wonderful counterpoint to Hillary, if that's still a possibility. She can't win but might make a good VP pick and be wasted in that position. Cruz may be the smartest guy in the room but he seems to know it too well. Being right doesn't often get you elected. I think Walker may have dropped out too soon, but you are correct, I don't see a lot of hope for the "undercard" candidates until these others fade away and right now I don't see that happening. Where's Romney when we need him?
the party leadership brought Trump upon themselves. did you think any of these 'real' republicans were going to be any different than the fakers you've been electing anyway?
walker looked like the only one with a proven set of nads, btw.
the party leadership brought Trump upon themselves. did you think any of these 'real' republicans were going to be any different than the fakers you've been electing anyway?
What the party leadership deserves is at wide variance from what the public deserves, Gino. I'd also add that we're not electing anyone but Democrats in this state. We're no different than California that way.
walker looked like the only one with a proven set of nads, btw.
Precisely. Which is why Trump went after him so hard.
D,
I'm not sure Trump had that much to do with Walker's eventual downfall. I suspect a lot of it was self-inflicted. The immigration flip-flopping, the inability to define why he was running, or what he would do as president are areas everyone else has cited. Mostly, I think he just struggled to appear distinctive from a massive field at a point in the process when the electorate likes to test out multiple candidates. I doubt many people who soured on Walker in polling did so because they even heard, let alone believed, what The Donald had to gas on about Walker's record.
In the end, he's being compared with Tim Pawlenty and it's pretty darn apt - both tried to straddle the divide between the "establishment" and the "conservatives" and failed in part because they needed both feet in either camp to get traction this relatively early in the process. In both cases, I think they were unable/unwilling to reconfigure their campaigns to respond to poor fundraising numbers and I think they both made their decision way too early.
FR, I do think Walker made mistakes, but Trump beat the crap out of Walker in Iowa and it hurt him, especially with the grass roots. Walker's numbers were very good in Iowa, and nationally, until the moment Trump got in the race. I also remember that some of Trump's initial forays into Iowa were full-on Walker bashing. Correlation is not necessary causation, but there's absolutely a connection. We have some Iowa-based readers for this blog, so perhaps those individuals will be able to add insight.
As for the T-Paw comparison, yeah, it's apt up to a point, but Walker was a heck of a lot more successful in moving a conservative agenda in Wisconsin that T-Paw ever was here. Ask WEAC, if you can find them. And that's why it's so disappointing. Walker has a list of accomplishments that's considerably more substantial than some of the people still running.
I've lost faith in our system and spend my time and emotions elsewhere. Living down here during an election would have been heaven 12 years ago. Now I largely ignore it.
My take here is that as long as Republicans ignore the 11th Commandment, they are going to set themselves up for losing, or at least not winning what they ought to win. Trump is Exhibit A about this problem, and I half suspect that he's actually a Democratic trick to torpedo the GOP nomination process.
I tend to mostly agree with the list above, though really I could go with just about anyone still running that isn't named "Trump." Even Jeb would be a huge improvement over Obama, no? Just looked through the positions of Rubio, Cruz, and Fiorina and the thing I think is lacking is an attempt to say "you know, here are some positions where I think we can all agree."
Post a Comment