An Opening Score Card

I really should get over my interest in electoral politics. It is a time waster. It matters rather little. I follow it the way someone else might follow basketball.

But with elections coming in Canada, and primaries coming in the US, it should be a fun year. I can't resist. A little handicapping at the post:

Justin Trudeau: has always been Canada's paler version of Barack Obama. His fortunes have always been tied to those of his doppelganger. While the Obama honeymoon has lasted longer in Canada than anywhere, it looks good and over now. Canada is not about to hand power to a charming rookie who is out of his depth, at the very moment the US moves on to something else.

Mulcair? I think Mulcair is a strong candidate. And there is no doubt some fatigue with a government gone long in power and long in the tooth. But I expect Harper to win. In the first place, Canadians are cautious; they are not quick to throw a government out, although when they do they can do it emphatically. Canada regularly has the longest-running governments in the Commonwealth. In the second place, the Liberals and the New Democrats are still fighting for the left-of-centre vote; it will still be somewhat split, giving the Conservatives a natural advantage. In the third, Ontario is currently Liberal. Whenever the Tories are not in power there, it frees up a large army of Conservative political job-seekers to concentrate on their chances at the federal level. Given that the Conservatives just lost power in Alberta as well, for the first time in two generations, that should unleash a second powerful cohort of political operatives at the federal level.

Now for the US:

Among the Democrats, my prediction, now at least a year old, is that Hillary Clinton will not be the nominee. Democrats do not like front runners. They also want to be entertained. Hillary is boring. And she has too much baggage, which keeps getting unpacked in the media.

Bernie Sanders has already generated some momentum. He is an entertaining figure: too old to be president by any ordinary measure, and an avowed socialist who speaks his mind. That makes him the sort of supeficially subversive figure Democrats love to support. A novelty. This is going to appeal to a lot of Democrats.

Martin O'Malley is a very respectable and attractive candidate, and is doing the sort of early leg work that might allow for an upset in a “retail” situation like Iowa. Given that Sanders is in the end unelectable, O'Malley might be well-positioned to pick up the pieces if  and when Hillary implodes.

I could see O'Malley taking Iowa, thanks to hard leg work, then Sanders taking New Hampshire, where hs is well known, and Hillary looking soon like very damaged goods. 

I don't see Jim Webb being a factor. He's a good candidate, but I don't think he has a natural constituency in the Democratic Party. He might surprise in South Carolina, as a fellow sort-of-Southerner, on the strength of Hillary's now-established weakness, in which case Hillary's done. 

I don't see Joe Biden being a factor either. Once they start laughing at you, it is over. 

I don't see anyone of great stature jumping in late. In the first place, that is harder to do now that than it used to be; in the second, there isn't anyone of enough stature in the Democratic Party to pull that off. Possibly Al Gore. But I doubt he'd fancy the gamble. 

That leaves O'Malley as my current favourite, but that could change.

The widest field, of course, is on the Republican side. Everyone who might conceivably want some day to be president is running this year. This is a sure sign of one thing: the political pros are convinced this is going to be a Republican year. This is the year to run, if you're Republican.

Jeb Bush has the inside track. He is the establishment candidate (that is, the favourite of the professional political operatives and office holders), and the establishment almost always gets its way among the Republicans. He also carries a gravitas that plays very well in the post-Obama era; he looks and talks like a grown up.

Scott Walker is the next-most-likely candidate. The establishment is fine with him, and he also has grassroots appeal. If Bush stumbles, a lot of pros will move over. His drawback is that he is still relatively inexperienced, barely more than a one-term governor. This, again, does not play so well in the post-Obama era, in which there will, especially among Republicans, be a yearning for raw competence and a steady hand at the wheel. Walker is also said to have little charisma; he does not look like much more than a typical schoolteacher. He doesn't -look- up to the job. This matters in a president.

Marco Rubio has been surprisingly strong in the early going. He has lots of charisma. Unfortunately, he is young and still inexperienced. If Clinton looks like the Democratic nominee, this is not necessarily a disadvantage: he can play against her as a fresh face, and his ethnicity would make it easier for guilty liberals to abandon her. The problem is, I do not expect Hillary to be the Democratic nominee. He might get the nomination anyway, by miscalculation.

Ben Carson is appealing, but obviously unqualified to be president. Make him Surgeon-General.

Ted Cruz has huge growth potential, but only if he can survive the early contests. He has Tea Party support, and could attract Christian conservative support. However, the party establishment fears him. He is too much of a maverick, and worse, a smart maverick. This would probably make him a great president, but not someone they would turn to unless out of desperation, because they could not control him. Nor can I see him accepting the VP slot. Maybe next time. One problem he has that I don't think anyone else has commented on: his voice just does not sound presidential.

Carly Fiorina is also unqualified to be president, but seems to be doing very well on the hustings. She might surprise in a retail setting like Iowa. She is probably running for VP, and might make a sly choice if the Democrats do nominate Hillary, taking the edge off voting against a woman for guilty liberals. In any case, she is making a case for her sticking around in some capacity. Secretary of Commerce?

Mike Huckabee is seriously underestimated at this point. He can count on solid support from the Christian right. Given the current turmoil over gay marriage and religious liberty, I expect the Christian right to be stirred up and set for a fight this time out. Huckabee is deadly engaging as a personality, with media experience, a true political talent. His problem is that the establishment fears him, again, as someone they cannot control. AS a result, he is going to struggle with fundraising. But he has a shot. If he falls short, he might be ideal VP material.

George Pataki is also being underestimated. Any three-time governor of New York deserves to be taken seriously. It is a remarkable measure of the strength of the Republican field that he is being written off as an also-ran. If he can claim a good issue as his own, that could change.

Rand Paul has no chance. He represents the libertarian wing, and can probably count on a solid 20% support in a Republican primary. But his foreign policy views are too far out of sync with the party. He has no growth potential. In a crowded field, he could make a big splash in the early primaries, perhaps winning in Iowa. But it will not matter.

Rick Santorum also has no chance. His natural constituency, the Christian right, is more comfortable with Mike Huckabee. I would expect him to carve out a stance on the far right on social issues, to play the bulldog, in order to find a constituency in the early going. But this will prevent any growth in support over the long term. He may cement his status as an important voice within the party.

Lindsey Graham is a good candidate, currently underrated, respected by his senate colleagues. His foreign policy experience should play well in the current international climate, especially if foreign policy crises intervene during the race, as they seem likely to. He also has the natural advantage of being from South Carolina, a crucial early primary state. He could even go all the way. More likely, he will be in an ideal position for either VP or Secretary of State in a Republican cabinet.

Rick Perry, given his record in Texas, ought to be given much more attention than he has been as well. He is hobbled, it is true, by his debate disaster last time. But I think a lot of people share my instinct that he is far too good a candidate to be cast off so casually. He claims it was due to pain-killers he was taking. If so, and if he can be reasonably impressive in an early debate this time, he should be able to wipe that slate clean, and begin to be taken seriously.

When I predicted that Hillary Clinton would not be the Democratic nominee, I also predicted that Chris Christie would not be the Republican nominee. They were both front-runners at the time. Christie got unfairly sidetracked by the bridge scandal, with which, so far as we can tell, he was not involved. Yet he has not recovered. I think that, regardless of the truth of the bridge affair, it brought to the fore an uneasy suspicion that there might be skeletons in Christie's closet. I share that suspicion. I think he is a risk as a candidate for this reason, and I expect a lot of Republicans feel the same way. On top of that, he faces the same roadblocks on the way to the nomination that Rudy Guiliani faced: too urban and Eastern for Iowa, too rough and tumble for New Hampshire, and too urban and Northern for South Carolina. And he cannot win Nevada without conjuring images of mob backing, being from Jersey. DOA by Super Tuesday. Possibly a very good VP pick.

Bobby Jindal is also underestimated. He has a good record of sheer competence in Louisiana. He has a marvellous ability to combine long experience with an imporession of youthfulness and energy. He has established himself among social conservatives and the Christian right, and is doing pretty well recently in getting attention for his stands on international affairs. His problem is that he is everyone's second or third choice. That, and no charisma. I will not be the first to point out that he does not sound presidential; but I think he has been working on that. He has to hang in somehow until the late going to have a chance. He might be a good choice for VP.

John Kasich is another terribly attractive candidate. Highly respected by colleagues, and with important media experience. Strong on budget and economic issues, which are likely to come to the fore during the campaign, and with much gravitas. He has break-out potential.

Donald Trump: purely comic relief. I'll enjoy watching him.

In sum, among the Republicans, I think we have the strongest field of candidates any US party has ever put forward, certainly in my lifetime. The attention this is likely to garner is likely, in turn, to suck oxygen from the Democrats over this election cycle.

I am extremely unhappy with the recent decision of Fox and CNN not to have all candidates participate in the first televised debate. Given the strength of the field, and how close they are to one another in the polls, this is an obvious injustice to both the candidates and the voters. It is simply unthinkable, for example, that a three-time governor of New York or Texas, like Pataki or Perry, should be excluded from such an event.