Quote:I can somewhat agree with your sentiment, but it would all come down to how the primaries go.  So far I have not seen any "direct attacks" between republican candidates, though we are still very early in the process.  If they continue to run on policy rather than attacks (I know, wishful thinking) then it really doesn't help the democrats.

 

Regarding the democrat nominees, I found it almost hilarious that Hillary used a phrase that Marco Rubio made part of the center point of his campaign, that being that (paraphrasing) "republican ideas on the economy are ideas of the past, not 21st century ideas".  She's trying to garner support from the younger voters, and position herself as "in touch" with main-stream voters and having a vision of the future while at the same time avoiding the issue of her age.  That argument will backfire on her most certainly.

 

In my mind, I've narrowed it down to five that could really make a serious run for the republican nomination.  Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham or Scott Walker.

Age is the least of my concerns with Hillary Clinton. If she finds herself in the White House, much of the country will find itself longing for the days of the centrist-by-comparison Barack Obama.

 

This primary cycle, particularly on the Republican side, will look just like you'd expect a wide-open race to: lots of politeness and talk of policy right up until Iowa and New Hampshire are coming up on us and a few candidates realize that they're toast unless they can steal some voters. Out come the attacks, and they don't stop until the convention, at which point the winner is crowned, the losers are graceful in defeat, and everyone is (publicly, at least, friends again). I remain convinced that this is Hillary Clinton's race to lose unless a few things happen:

 

1. A moderate Democratic contender emerges and is able to unite the center and left better than Hillary, who'll unite the left and alienate the center, will. Kind of like what happened in 1992 when a guy from Arkansas emerged as the unlikely favorite. Martin O'Malley could be that guy, and I'll be watching his campaign closely. In an age of increasing polarization, he's about as close as either party has to a centrist candidate this year.

 

2. The Republican contenders avoid kicking the crap out of each other and giving the Democrats an infinite list of talking points to crush them on. Again, I think the only way this condition is met is if the field shrinks dramatically long, long before Super Tuesday. If there are still eight or nine candidates alive that late in the game while the Democrats have focused in on one person, probably Hillary, good luck recovering.

 

3. The Republicans send a moderate candidate against Hillary, whose appeal does not cross the center at all, and whose rabid dogs are way off in left field. If the Republicans play the far right in this campaign, they'll lose. If they throw someone like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio out there, they could take it. I wouldn't call either of those two centrist, but let's be honest for a second. The people who intend to vote for Ted Cruz will vote Republican no matter which candidate the party trots out. Many of them would sooner vote for Fidel Castro than Hillary Clinton. By throwing a moderate-by-comparison candidate like Jeb out there, they'll get the Ted Cruz votes by default, but will also steal away from centrist Democrats. It's the same dynamic that the Democrats have with O'Malley, but unlike O'Malley, the moderate Republican candidates won't be steamrolled by the H-Train.

---