My instant analysis of the major candidates ...
McCain might be too old. But if the war on terrorism is the defining issue, his passion and his biography lends him credibility on this issue.
Rudy as the NYC mayor during 9/11 also has a good grasp of what is at stake regarding the war on terrorism. However, he has a "larger than life" personality which reminds me of Clinton which makes me nervous. I know stereotypes are unfair. When I heard Clinton was governor of Arkansas back in 1991-1992 campaign, I pictured in my head small state old-boy network corruption. Unfortunately, for Mayor Rudy, the stereotype in my head about New York is big city political corruption. These maybe unfair but perceptions do influence me and I'm sure other voters too.
Rommney seems like the Robo-candidate... almost too perfect? The guy has a great resume: good family, successful businessman, rescued Salt Lake City Olympics, Republican governor in Democratic state of Massachusetts. The next line item is of course, POTUS. Crisp delivery of lines and telegenic appearance.
Thompson needs to get in soon or the train leaves the station. In the end, he may not want to get in. I heard he had cancer recently.
Hillary might get the nomination. She has all the advantages *on paper* but there is the whole brittle personality thing. It may be "sexist" to say it but brittle in a man is more tolerable than in a woman. On policy, she has many supporters from her side of the aisle. In terms of experience, she has been in the circles of power all her life. But in the end, will people trust her? Will the voting public revolt at the thought of Bush 1989-1993, Clinton 1993-2001, Bush 2001-2009, Clinton 2009-2017?
Obama has all the *television* advantages... good looks, good voice, good biography. But the problem is inexperience. I can imagine at some point in the campaign the wheels will come off the wagon either with a gaffe on his part or by his staff. His metoric rise in the polls is the "anti-Hillary" vote. He is the tabula rasa for all the discontent with Hillary and Clintonian excesses. There are some in the Democratic party who feel as if the Clintons have been on the stage too long and it is time for a fresh face and Obama has be the beneficiary of those longings.
Edwards looks good but seems to be an empty suit. He has to hope that Obama self-destructs so Edwards gains all those anti-Hillary votes.
As I see it, people are looking for a candidate who they agree with on most matters of policy, has enough experience for them to feel confident they will be competent and finally, has that "it" factor that inspires trust in these uncertain times.
Policy matters. Candidates too far from the center get support a mile deep but only an inch wide and get weeded out fast.
Experience matters. That is the reason why governors have advantages in presidential campaigns compared to legislators.
The "it" factor or the lack there of matters. How is it that Gore lost in 2000? How is it that Kerry lost in 2004? Everything on paper said Gore should win. He was the Veep of a fairly popular president, economic times were good and the world was at peace. It should have been a 40+ state landslide for Gore. Everything on paper said Kerry should win. He was the Vietnam War veteran, the war in Iraq was going poorly and the economy was so-so. Bush should have been turned out much like Bush 41 or Carter in a no-contest contest.
Instead, Bush won both times despite 1/2 of the country completely against his policy inclinations and doubts about his experience (in 2000) and performance (in 2004). It wasn't so much that Bush won but that Gore and Kerry self-destructed.
The 2007-2008 campaign is as wide open as I have ever seen since following politics since the 1976 campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment