Gyroscopic Investing

Saw this this morning: 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... d-uvas-ce/

Jeb Bush leads 2016 GOP presidential field, UVA’s Center for Politics says

“For all the sturm und drang regarding the Tea Party in the Republican nominating process, it’s going to be hard for someone who lacks widespread establishment support — like Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) or Ted Cruz (R-TX) — to win the nomination,”?


Because the GOP has to screw things up and find a "moderate" who can't be elected. 

Are you saying Rand could?

moda0306 wrote: Are you saying Rand could?

That is a good question.  I don't know.  I know he sounds very reasonable when you hear him speak.  He was apparently very well received in Bezerkley.  I don't know enough about him and all his policies to be sure all that he stands for, but there are certainly more Rs with libertarian tendencies than in the past. Hopefully his foreign policy beliefs aren't way off.

Is he more a longshot now than Obama was 8 years ago?  A lot of people don't have a favorable opinion of lady Clinton, and he could benefit from the "blank slate" that helped Obama get elected.

My problem is that right now I am not seeing anyone with strong electability in the GOP. Christie was my reluctant choice until his staff decided to take stupidity to the nuclear level. Of course 2016 is still a long ways off and he may recover from this. As for Bush, he seems likeable enough, but I am about Bushed out. The elder Bush (41) was both a gentleman in the classical sense of the term and a reasonably smart guy. Which is to say that he could play golf and expound on matters of state using correct sentences all at the same time... unlike Bush (43). But in any case I have become rather disillusioned with the Bush Dynasty (an odd statement from a monarchist but true all the same).

For now I will wait and see. If all else fails I can always vote (yet again) for Mr. Coolidge.

Desert wrote: Benko, what's wrong with Jeb Bush?  I don't know that much about him, but he always appeared much more intelligent than his brother.

1. "Jeb Bush urges House to pass immigration reform"

2.  Aside from that fatal flaw, he might be reasonable, but it does not matter.  All it would take is non-stop "do we really need another Bush in the white house"??  to turn off a significant number of people.  The harder work that the left has in demonizing an R pick, the better off we are.  Bush is way to easy and a non-starter for that reason in my opinion.

Ad Orientem wrote: I am not seeing anyone with strong electability in the GOP

I'm not sure where you are coming from politically.  Are you really a non-liberal/non-statist/non-leftist (take your pic)?  If so what would electability look like to you? 

Obama was "not electable", but won because of anti-Bush sentiment (well among other things).  Anti-Obama sentiment is high and I'm hoping someone might be able to take advantage of that.

Benko wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: I am not seeing anyone with strong electability in the GOP

I'm not sure where you are coming from.  Are you really a non-liberal/non-statist/non-leftist (take your pic), and if so what would electability look like to you?

I am primarily coming from the world of reality politics, as opposed to ideological politics. Which is to say that...

Whoever wins the White House will need to carry moderates and independents. Only a small fraction of the electorate, perhaps 25%, could be considered Tea Party conservatives. And a disproportionate percentage of them are to be found in a small group of states that are not in contention in presidential election years. Too many Tea Party types assume they represent a majority of the American people. They don't. That means you need other people to get you over the finish line in a general election. Which brings us to Bill Buckley's famous rule, you don't nominate the most conservative candidate. You nominate the most conservative candidate who can win.

Consider Ted Cruze. He is a darling of the TP but also an ideological bomb thrower. If he gets the nomination I think he has a lock on most of the lower South, excluding Florida. He would be competitive in perhaps a half dozen other states, most of them rural and with low electoral vote counts. And the rest would either be a Democratic lock or close enough that the election would be over before Cruz gave his acceptance speech at the convention. Think 1964.

"You nominate the most conservative candidate who can win."

Presumably that is what the GOP establishment thought they were doing in the last several election cycles.  Didn't work out so well. 

Wasn't Regan (sp?) considered too conservative to be electable?

Rubio is very eloquent at talking about conservative principles and seemed ideal, until the amnesty issue came out.

I agree you have a point and that is why I'm thinking Rand Paul and not Cruz (who I'd prefer).

"Too many Tea Party types assume they represent a majority of the American people."
And the majority of the american people are followers of ALinski (favored by Obama and CLinton)?

"You nominate the most conservative candidate who can win."

Presumably that is what the GOP establishment thought they were doing in the last several election cycles.  Didn't work out so well. 

The Buckley rule doesn't guarantee you will win an election. It just means you aren't guaranteed to lose it.

Wasn't Regan (sp?) considered too conservative to be electable?

He was. And in a normal election year he probably would have lost. Jimmy Carter was not beaten by Ronald Reagan. He was defeated by double digit inflation and the Iranians.

I agree you have a point and that is why I'm thinking Rand Paul and not Cruz (who I'd prefer).

Rand is an interesting guy. But he has a lot of baggage. His (IMHO very sensible) foreign policy views are anathema to a large block of the GOP's right wing. And he has some history of associating with legitimate nut jobs that might come back to bite him. I am keeping my eye on him.

"Too many Tea Party types assume they represent a majority of the American people."
And the majority of the american people are followers of ALinski (favored by Obama and CLinton)?

The hard core lefties are a bit like the hard core Tea Party types. They constitute a small but ideologically solid voting block and are mostly concentrated in a handful of states that are not in contention in presidential elections. The other 35-50% are moderates who might lean a little right or a little left, but are not comfortable with the more extreme wings of the ideological spectrum. And unlike the TP or hard core lefties, these people will vote across party lines if there is a sufficient appeal. Whoever gets their votes almost always wins the election.