I have been interested in the world of politics for some time, but this election cycle is a cut above what has come before. The Democratic front runner is a weak candidate by any stretch of the imagination with her involvement in some of the most unpopular events and actions of the current administration and her obvious entanglement with the State Department correspondence on her personal servers. She would be a disaster if she is elected and she is ripe for the picking, if the GOP picks a viable candidate from the pack that is running. Most of them would seem to be a step up from Clinton by any measure.
There is still a lot of time before the big primaries that will decide the eventual nominee, but several of the candidates seem to be moving into a good position to be the GOP standard bearer.
There are two questions: Which of the candidates will win the nomination and which of all the candidates would make a better President.
Right now I think that the eventual winner is sort of a crap shoot. I have some real doubts that the Donald can carry enough votes into the convention to win the nomination. I'm not sure that his shoot from the hip and let the chips fall where they may, will hold up when many of the 2nd tier candidates start dropping out and their supporters coalesce behind someone else, and I don't think it will be Trump. It's far more likely to be Rubio or Cruz. My own choice at the moment is Rubio. Over and over again the front runner in January and in the early Iowa and New Hampshire contests have not emerged as the nominee. I just think that Rubio is in a good position to capture the big states when the main primary cycle begins in the middle of the year. But, then I haven't a good record in this arena.
An issue has been raised concerning the eligibility of Ted Cruz to be President.
The following excerpt was taken from the Wikipedia online encyclopedia:
"Ted Cruz announced on March 22, 2015, that he was running for the Republican Party's nomination for president in the 2016 election.[128] Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada,[129] to a "U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban immigrant father",[130] giving him dual Canadian-American citizenship.[131] Cruz applied to formally renounce his Canadian citizenship and ceased being a citizen of Canada, on May 14, 2014.[132][133] Professor Chin (see above),[130] former Solicitor General Paul Clement,[134] former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal,[134] and Professor Peter Spiro of Temple University Law School[135] believe Cruz meets the constitutional requirements to be eligible for the presidency.[136]
Professor Tribe, however, described Cruz's eligibility as "murky and unsettled".[137] Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein believes that Cruz is eligible, but agrees with University of San Diego Professor Michael Ramsey that Cruz's eligibility is not "an easy question". Sunstein believes concerns over standing and the political-question doctrine will prevent the courts from resolving issues surrounding Cruz's eligibility.[138]
Professor McManamon (see above) believes generally that natural-born citizens must be born in the United States, which would make Cruz ineligible.[139] She has explicitly written that Cruz is ineligible.[140] Alan Grayson, a Democratic Member of Congress from Florida, does not believe Cruz is a natural-born citizen, and stated he intends to file a lawsuit should Cruz be the Republican nominee.[141] Orly Taitz, Larry Klayman, and Mario Apuzzo, who each filed multiple lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility, have also asserted that Cruz is not eligible.[142][143]
In November 2015, two ballot challenges were filed in New Hampshire, alleging Cruz was ineligible because he was born in Canada.[144] The ballot commission rejected the challenges.[145] In December, similar lawsuits were filed in Vermont and Florida.[146][147] In January 2016, a similar lawsuit was filed in Texas.[148"
So I'm not at all sure that the matter has really been settled.
It is clear to me that Hillary has a real problem on her hands in any debate with whoever comes out on top of the GOP nomination process. Whoever they are, will have been honed by numerous, rather brutal debates, so they will come into any debate with Hillary with a lot more experience and background in handling the venue. Her experience has been the run she made 8 years ago, where Obama annihilated her,and a cake walk through a couple milk toast confrontations with Bernie Sanders, the Socialist. It might be that Hillary will opt out of any debate at all. That might the smartest move for her. She will be killed in an open debate with any of the GOP nominees. She just has too many issues they can use against her. Her best chance is to avoid the controversial, even illegal, issues that are in her background and just depend on the basic Democratic base and the women's vote (she hopes) to carry her over the top. She is sure she will capture the women's votes, just because she's a woman.
It certainly is not clear as to which of the candidates would actually make the better President. Our history is rife with people who came out of essentially nowhere, with no background that would foretell that this person would be a strong and determined President when they entered the office and then they rose to the occasion. Think Harry Truman. And, some have entered the office with seeming impeccable credentials that didn't do so well, in fact they were a disaster. We have had ex generals, senators, congressmen, governors, bureaucrats and college professors elected or thrust in the office. There seems to be little experience that can pre-judge a Presidents performance once they attain the office.
It would seem that the best background for the office would have been as the governor of one of the big states. They are the ones that have had to battle the entrenched bureaucracies, their own legislators and actually had to take actions that are part of the record. One of our greatest Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, was a former Governor. Of the front runners Christie, Bush and Kasich fit that bill. I might include Huckabee, but he really is out of it. I really don't know why he bothers to run. Of the three front runners, they all have a very good record that should be, and is appealing to the GOP voters. But, they can't seem to catch on to the Republican base. I believe any of them would make a good President, they certainly seem to have the experience most closely related to the office.
The two business people that have entered the race, Trump and Fiorina, The Donald is the front runner by far. Would Trump make a good President? It's almost impossible to predict. He would certainly have a rude awakening when he enters the White House and tries to impose his will on congress and other nations like he does as head of a multibillion dollar organization. Now, when he says jump, every body around him only asks "how high". But, he's a very smart man and it may be that he will learn to play the game of politics as well as he learned the game of real estate development. My take is, that if he wishes to be successful in the general election, he had better work a little harder at thinking before he opens his mouth. He doesn't have to change his position, just be a little more realistic about what is possible or not. Deport all illegals? That sounds nice, but exactly how do you do that? No specifics given. Build a wall and Mexico pays for it? How do you make that happen? Again no specifics. Balance the trade imbalance with China? By erecting stiff tariffs on Chinese goods? What does he think the response from China would be? My trouble with Trump is he's full of great ideas that are not only not going to happen, but might get us into more trouble if he tried.
There have been a few Congressmen that have stepped into the Oval Office that have been very good for the country. How about Lincoln? They had no earlier experience in an executive position of any kind, but they grew into the job fast. Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (although he did serve as the VP) are a few more examples.
Of all the candidates I think Kasich would likely make the better leader, but I don't see him being nominated and even if nominated, I think he might have the hardest time of all the front runners of beating Hillary. So I fall back on Rubio. He's young, dynamic and an excellent speaker. He would eat Hillary up in a debate, that is if Hillary commits to one. I think he is electable in a general election. He hasn't alienated the Latino voters, and will likely gain a lot of votes from that group. His biggest drawback in winning the nomination might be his stance on immigration. He isn't out to expel all the immigrants immediately. That might play well in the general election however, unless that one issue causes the strong Republican base to stay home.
Hillary will almost certainly be the Democrat's candidate short of an indictment for criminal activity for the use of her private server in handling of classified material, or the link of the Clinton foundation to some rather nefarious activities. That may or may not happen. It won't if the Attorney General of the United States can avoid it. I'm afraid that no matter what the FBI turns up, the Justice Department will try to squash it. A lot depends on what Obama wants to do. If he wants it put under the table, that's very likely to happen.
Right now it looks like Hillary against Trump, Rubio or Cruz. All the pundits seem to picking Cruz, but my own favorite is Rubio. Of the three,I think he will be the strongest in the general election. He will appeal to a lot independents, a fair number of conservative Democrats and still hold on to the Republican base.
In any event, because of the Democrats superior numbers, the race to the White House seems tilted in their favor no matter who is running. But, I have a feeling that we're likely to see a Republican victory and by a rather large margin. But, that's for November. Still a long ways off.
148
