2016

My mother doesn't think Hillary Clinton will run for President in the next election and my father thinks Rand Paul will be our next President. They might be right, but then again, they both voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. ----------- (Marcel wrote): Your father is brave to predict; anything can happen at this point... Hillary is doing everything she needs to do to run, working the whole gamut behind the scenes even now. So she is not going to voluntarily bow out. No chance she voluntarily bows out. Nothing already known is likely to stick against her at this point. Thanks to Republicans' lack of anything else to do, there seems to be nothing left in Hillary's closet to disclose. Further, I'll predict the upcoming house Bengazi hearings will be a disaster for Republicans, because it will definitely be popular with people who would vote Rep anyway, but further alienate folk they need to attract to win elections. Your father probably disagrees particularly on this point. A veneer of unity around 'winning against' I believe can be deconstructed in public debate. That table is set. And Dems can change the subject on a potent array of already proven wedge issues, and new ones. And Dems can go to the archives and preach, "I told you so..." on another array of policy fiascoes. Republicans have decided quite consistently in the primaries to date, to sideline the Tea Party candidates. 20 down out of 20 Tea Party candidates. Reps want to win, and radical candidates won't fly. While I would say Paul is not strictly Tea Party, rather Libertarian, I think Rand Paul is still too radical to win, and Republicans, especially on strategic and foreign policy, along with the bipartisan national security/foreign policy cabal, will sideline him quickly. Paul could sell out his L. principles (backroom-agree to govern else-wise) in order to get the backing he needs to be backed, but that is not his style at all. He would rather go down with the ship now, because he's young enough to wait for the country to come around to a Libertarian consensus (yea, I think that is a possible point of left/right rapprochement) than to pander/sell out to the conservative factions that loath his priorities. He is born and raised an ideologue. Republicans would most profitably field a candidate they can frame as "compassionate conservative" (I'd call this a reprise of the successful "Happy Face conservatism," "wolf in sheep's clothing," "don't worry, be happy," and "telegenic front man" strategy) again, because it works very well. This could happen quickly if the Bengazi hearings fail to goad Obama into Supreme Court crisis' over executive privileges, or the country rejects Isa's circus. Actually, Paul's biggest flaw might be that he is NOT a self-made man. Which probably kills Jeb Bush from real viability, too. The R's most viable candidate is Kashich, but I have no idea what they will ultimately decide given all the balls in the air, divisions and challenges to conservatism., Hilary is polling higher than any mentioned Republican: Kasich here, is doing better than the rest in Ohio, which will likely decide the presidency. Granted he is dong well in his home state, duh. But he is very, very smart and has positioned himself lately as a moderate with a relatively sane recent track record, enough to win broadly with the right framing, which scares me particularly because I think he is an actually rabidly conservative, and sadistic creep, albeit amazingly disciplined for now in order to remain viable on the national stage... You got me going...