Let me first start by saying that nothing in this article is an endorsemet of either party, any political affiliation, political belief, or any candidate. I don't have a political science degree, or anyother degree for that matter. Also this post is largely inspired by Scott Adams's (the guy who writes Dilbert) writings on this election cycle on his blog (http://blog.dilbert.com/). He has mostly focused on Trump's superior pursuasion tactics. Robert Greene's now defunct blog (http://powerseductionandwar.com/), has also been very influential.
The Non-Contenders
First I want to discus the field of non-contenders. Guys like Gilmore, Huckabee, Walker, Jindal, Graham. On the DNC side, Webb, Chafee & O'Malley. Every Presidential election, non-contenders throw their hat in the ring. And I don't mean obscure nobodies complaining about rent being too high. I mean political insiders who should be aware of their non-contender status. If you are like me you probably dismissed them as vain and detached from reality. But now I wonder if that is really why they run. Just humor me.
 |
| He had to know that he never had a chance. |
So could the entrance of these non-contenders into a race that they can't hope to win have an alternate strategy? I wonder if maybe the non-contenders are there to act as blockers for the real contenders until just before or after the early primaries. To spread the election coverage across as many candidates as possible. Under this theory, Jindal and Graham never were suppose to win the primary, they were there to abosrb bad press. Every minute the media spent talking about Graham, meant they weren't giving negative press to the Party's real contenders. Maybe the non-contenders were aware of the role they were to play, maybe not. From a strategic perspective, I'm not sure it matters. What matters is that every time the press makes fun of O'Malley for trying to rap, means they aren't hanging a stone around Hillary's neck by talking about Benghazi.
The Trump Problem
The GOP insiders may or may not have problem with Trump. I suspect that they do. I think they see him as a threat to business as usual. But Trump is his own nuclear deterrent. He doesn't need the GOP. If they piss him off he can run third party, split the GOP vote and thereby hand the election to the Democrats. Internet writers tend to think that candidates are affraid of crossing Trump because he will crush their campaign. I don't think so. Some of the candidates at the bottom of the polls would most likely be willing to jump on that grenade for the good of the party if it would guarantee success for the establishment. But with the aforementioned nuclear deterrent, such actions would only make matters worse.
 |
| Say what you will, this man knows how to fight. |
David Horowitz has said "Politics is war with different weapons." The GOP doesn't get this. They are the stupid party. The first thing that I think the GOP candidates should do is stay in the race. Second they should steal Trump's stategies, henceforth referred to as weapons. Third the weapons should be employed in any and every way except against direct attacks on Trump. The goal is not to directly take down Trump which would result in him claiming that he wasn't treated fairly and use the treatment as justification for running third party. Instead the goal is to increase each candidates' appeal to the voters. They should try to out-do Trump at his own game. Those at the bottom should say things that are at least as outlandish as things Trump has said. Those outlandish comments would then get coverage that would have otherwise went to Trump. The goal is to drown Trump out.
Undecended Testicles
As for the serious contenders (Rubio and Cruz) and could have beens (Bush and Paul), they have made a major miscalculation. I wonder if this is due to influence from political consultants. Or if they are really detached from the body politic and too blue blooded. Or because of a lack of real understanding of the American psyche. They are all too good, too perfect. Americans don't like this. Least of all conservatives in fly-over country. G.W. Bush, B. Clinton, G.H.W. Bush, R. Reagan and J. Carter all had an unpolished "man of the people" image. All had hick accents. And they didn't try to be too clean or too polished.
 |
| See that rounding in his upper back? It's because he doesn't have spine. |
short emotionally charged statements. He should attempt to stir up voters' emotions first and then give them arguments to rationalize their emotions. But stirring up emotions is the more important part of the equation.
I'm not sure there is any hope for Bush.
The President Who Could Have Been
When I look at his politics, Rand Paul, could be winning this election easily. His stance on the issues should give him appeal to grass roots concervatives in the primaries and he could even have significant appeal to Democratic voters in November. But as the old song goes, "it ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it." His political beliefs could appeal to a broad range of Americans...if he had framed them the right way. But he didn't and left the door open for his opponents to frame them for him. He framed military cuts as "real financial concervatism". The problem is that to the hard right, no number is too high for military spending. This argument should have been framed more like this:
"Our men and women in uniform deserve better than the rampant misuse of funds that has been the norm in this monsterous buearacy known as the Department of Defence. The DOD hasn't passed one audit as mandated by law in the last 20 years. Every dollar that is misused or mispent is a dollar that can't be used to develop new technologies, upgrade old equipment, provide additional training or fund VA hospitals."
 |
| So close, yet so far, Senator. |
He has also brought out his anti-interventionist leanings too early. Saying that he wouldn't have toppled the regimes that Hillary and Obama had. He needs to back off. Its too early for him to try to fight Hillary. He needs to defeat the other Republicans before he starts worrying about Hillary. And even if he did manange to damage Hillary's reputation who's going to remember it come November? He needs to focus on differetiating himself from the rest of the GOP. He can do that by being more consice in how he would handle ISIS compared to how other candidates have been. When other candidates blather on with vague notions of "desimating ISIS", "destroying ISIS" or "carpet bombing ISIS", Paul could be a little more precise. He could try to frame it like this:
"I see the war with ISIS as an just a small isolated part of the broader War on Terror. The war on terror isn't a conventional war. It isn't like going to war with another Nation. We should not treat this like WWII, The Gulf War or the wars after 9/11. It is a long protracted, unconventional war against small groups spread all over the globe, that may not even have connections to one another. As such I am very concerned about candidtates who fall back on conventional tactics just so they can appear to be strong on defense. This war, in my estimation, is best fought by using the men from our Special Operations and Intelligence Communities. We can't afford to get into long, protracted and expensive conventional wars. We should get in, get the job done, get out and start preparing for the next engagemet. No occupying territory. No nation building. No prolonged boots on the ground. Get in. Get the job done. Get out."
I also think that Paul thinks that by setting himself up as a non-interventionist as opposed to Hillary's hawkishness he will gain votes from the anti-war left. Which I agree, he will. But by the same logic wouldn't he risk loosing some votes from hawkish Republicans who are soft on other issues. I'm not sure that this play of his will be a net gain, even if makes it past the primary.
Well that's it for this post. I may have an analysis of the debate if there is anything worth analyzing.
See ya next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment